The "pig" had to educate his twit for a daughter who supports his :greedy: serial adultery (Ex 20:14).
I will not vote for trump
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
It would have been you if you'd understood the actual correlation and what it implied.By revealing that women divorce 2 to 1 to men.
Yeah, 'schooled'
And who does and has always done more of the remarrying?
Men. Even now, at its height, historically, it's about 50/50 with women on remarriage. 64% of men exiting bad marriages are going after it again. So either those remarrying men don't share your opinion of marriage and the opposite sex or they were the problem in the first marriage.
Supra, doofi.
'Exiting'- or being divorced? It has been proven that divorce weighs in heavier emotionally on men than women, and they take on a heavier burden in general because women have support systems both financially and socially.
A man deals with it in the harshest way, and head on, while the woman is basically handled as a child. Sorry to say it, but I don't see ruined families and multiple men facing that is worth a women's much deluded 'happiness'.
Hold on to baggage, don't hold on to baggage. :idunno: What's your point? If you've divorced your spouse, :listen: you're not an overcomer. Stick your "baggage" in your pipe and smoke it (Re 3:21, 22:11).
"Guilt is perhaps the most painful companion of death." ~ Coco Chanel
"I coulda been a contender." 1 Pe 3:7 :straight: ~ Terry Malloy, On the Waterfront
lain:By whom as evidenced in what authority? I've read the speculation. The most recent study I've seen, from 2015:
Researchers from Binghamption University and University College London recently surveyed nearly 6,000 participants from 96 countries and asked them to rate the emotional and physical pain of a breakup from one (no pain) to 10 (unbearable).
In terms of emotional anguish, women averaged 6.84 compared to 6.58 in men. Women scored an average of 4.21 in terms of physical pain compared to men’s 3.75.
I think you could say fairly that given women initiate divorce proceedings more than men they're probably more likely to come to terms with divorce than are men, on average.
Women tend to have more supportive social circles, emotionally, because women create them more frequently. Financially, women are disproportionately poor and more likely to be in difficult circumstances as a result of divorce.
That's literally you just saying anything that suits you with no factual leg to stand on. I'm sure it feels good to you to say it, suspect that's the main point of your screeds on the point.
Your sincerity is only outmatched by your apparent understanding of the facts.
lain:Irrational ending aside, you can't see anything with your eyes shut.
:e4e:
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
America isn't a Theocracy, as a matter of fact Christians making sure this wasn't so. Also, Thomas Jefferson was not a Bible believing Christian, but, arguably, was of the greatest of Presidents. This is not to proselytize for Trump, as I've expressed my sentiments, initial support of a baboon being nominated, ensuing disappointment, etc. But this is to say that the expectation your candidate must be a Christian who, as if, should dissect cleanly on all moral doctrinal grounds, when even Christians are saved only by grace and the sinless who throw stones thing, I don't know what this arguing over Trump's women accomplishes, given Jefferson was boinking a slave woman, yet I'd trust the Constitution and government of the people to Jefferson, any day of the week.
In any case, you don't have a choice of saint anybody to vote for and need to get over this aspect of it, move on to what's at stake and, otherwise, relevant, again with the notion you're not electing a church deacon, rather government of all people of the nation. Anyway, this is just a comment on what seems to be a fruitless argument and muckraking that leads to, what, the conclusion it would be moral for a Christian to vote for the pro homo, pro Muslim, pro special interests bribery, tax more, spend more, abort more, big government, disarm you, war more and erase God from the public square candidate?
Put it this way: what is the cosmic bugaboo about divorce, when you have another candidate pro everything Satanic, right in your face, a known commodity, promising more Obama to come? And this isn't speaking for Trump, just wonder what sort of three-legged chair some of you guys are sitting on, your alternative, then, and what the precedent is, of a long line of Presidents, that they've all been, as if, squeaky clean and evangelicals, delivering a sermon during their State of the Union address? If you see all these problems with Trump, what is your answer, in terms of the real world? Would Billy Graham even make a good President? Would he, himself, think he'd be a good President? I doubt it. Matthew 22:21.
Some of you people should perhaps also talk about some of the things in your life you're not proud of, your divorces, drug or alcohol abuse, lies, thefts, pornography and fornications, anger management issues, faithlessness, how many years you spent with your heads clean up your rears, etc. (If presently even extricated.) Then, how well this all fits Christianity, with this "do as I say, not as I do" theme you've got going.
Again, if Trump is all things evil, for having a problem with women, what's your practical alternative to move the nation forward in a more upright, truly American fashion? If you're advocating for Hillary, "Christian," you've got your whore, then, of the worst kind, the spiritual kind. If you can fornicate with Satan, why shouldn't Trump be allowed his whore, also, that's just some flesh he at least didn't fish from a bottomless pit?
In any case, you don't have a choice of saint anybody to vote for and need to get over this aspect of it, move on to what's at stake and, otherwise, relevant, again with the notion you're not electing a church deacon, rather government of all people of the nation. Anyway, this is just a comment on what seems to be a fruitless argument and muckraking that leads to, what, the conclusion it would be moral for a Christian to vote for the pro homo, pro Muslim, pro special interests bribery, tax more, spend more, abort more, big government, disarm you, war more and erase God from the public square candidate?
Put it this way: what is the cosmic bugaboo about divorce, when you have another candidate pro everything Satanic, right in your face, a known commodity, promising more Obama to come? And this isn't speaking for Trump, just wonder what sort of three-legged chair some of you guys are sitting on, your alternative, then, and what the precedent is, of a long line of Presidents, that they've all been, as if, squeaky clean and evangelicals, delivering a sermon during their State of the Union address? If you see all these problems with Trump, what is your answer, in terms of the real world? Would Billy Graham even make a good President? Would he, himself, think he'd be a good President? I doubt it. Matthew 22:21.
Some of you people should perhaps also talk about some of the things in your life you're not proud of, your divorces, drug or alcohol abuse, lies, thefts, pornography and fornications, anger management issues, faithlessness, how many years you spent with your heads clean up your rears, etc. (If presently even extricated.) Then, how well this all fits Christianity, with this "do as I say, not as I do" theme you've got going.
Again, if Trump is all things evil, for having a problem with women, what's your practical alternative to move the nation forward in a more upright, truly American fashion? If you're advocating for Hillary, "Christian," you've got your whore, then, of the worst kind, the spiritual kind. If you can fornicate with Satan, why shouldn't Trump be allowed his whore, also, that's just some flesh he at least didn't fish from a bottomless pit?
DavidK
New member
That is a false dichotomy. There is a wide gap between expecting a squeaky clean saint for president and saying you won't vote for Trump because he gives every indication that he has no moral sense and in fact crows about his sin.
The ultimate problem is not that he's been divorced, committed adultery, has no control over his tongue, and loves money and the vision of his own name in 20 foot high letters. The ultimate problem is that he sees none of this as something worth repentance. Beyond that, he revels in it.
The ultimate problem is not that he's been divorced, committed adultery, has no control over his tongue, and loves money and the vision of his own name in 20 foot high letters. The ultimate problem is that he sees none of this as something worth repentance. Beyond that, he revels in it.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Unless you're some flaming liberal, who can never answer as to the issues, rather can only go around doing character assassinations, again, what is your alternative? Hillary? Is that your Christian alternative, seeing as how you're pontificating so highly and mightily from your moral platform? Again, your alternative is the known commodity, of the Satanic liberal agenda against Christ and Christians, to even enshrining perversion into law, persecuting cake bakers, and trying to silence Romans 1 in the pulpit? You need to pull yourself out of whatever quicksand you're standing in, stop avoiding the questions the post was about. I wasn't asking for some lame reiteration of Trump's women. Last painful attempt, what is your Christian alternative in 2016? And why do I get the impression women wouldn't be the issue, if Bill Clinton was the subject matter?
DavidK
New member
Women were certainly an issue for Bill Clinton back in '98, but Trump supporters don't seem to remember going on about how "character matters".
I have found no alternative candidate to Trump, but I take a longer view than one election. Comes from frequently reading (and believing) words written from eternal perspective, I expect.
Or, to put it another way, my alternative is another kingdom, not of this world.
I'd agree to a point. Jefferson had egregious failings as a human being, but he was still one of the greatest minds of his generation and responsible for a great deal of what most people agree is one of the most important documents in the history of mankind. The problem with Trump is that while his failings are as evident, more so than Jefferson's in his time, that's almost entirely where the parallel ends.
Ford was probably the last uncomplicatedly decent human being we accidentally had as president for a short while.
Not much in that I'd agree with. Pro gay rights? Sure, but that's done. Pro Muslim? No idea what that's about. How can you be pro any religious sect in a meaningful, legal sense, without it floating all religious boats? What "Muslim law" is anyone proposing, by way of putting a point on it. Special interests are all over everyone, so there's no real distinction. You could even argue that Trump comes as a living, breathing representative of the rich. No one who wants to be reelected is going to increase taxes on the middle class. Republicans have been as adept as Democrats at growing government, so that's no distinction and no one was disarmed in eight years of Obama, who has typically been to Hillary's left. And God isn't going anywhere in relation to the public square.
And no, I'm not suggesting you or anyone vote for Clinton. I'm not going to cast a vote for either and I'm encouraging anyone, left or right, to do likewise, to write in the candidate you think should have the office and give a resounding no confidence vote to both party leaderships.
On the Graham question, I doubt he would. I'm not even sure it's possible to be a thoroughly moral president. But that doesn't give scoundrels a pass either.
I don't think he's intentionally evil, I think he's told us who he is and where his faith is found, in Donald Trump. I think that would be dangerous in the hands of Jefferson. In a lesser being, down right frightening.
And there you went dramatically off your own rails on the judgment part of approach, so I don't know what to say except that calling someone a whore and comparing supporting her with fornicating with Satan is just...
lain:Rather, Hillary and Trump represent, to my mind, two people dedicated to power over principle. Neither of them have demonstrated any exceptional ability that can begin to overwhelm that (a-la Jefferson) in route to inspiring our support and confidence.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Great answer! Maybe all wasn't lost on TOL today, after all. Yes, also 110% down with His kingdom and things eternal. And it wasn't my intent to hold Trump out as a moral character, rather I just wonder where all the venom for Trump comes from, in the Christian community, so-called, anyway, that believes Hillary an alternative. Does not compute, at all. Given the open hostility to Christians and Christian values of the liberal agenda, it's inexplicable a person can claim Hillary and Christ, at the same time, I believe many the deluded and fakes out there, and just plain liars, of course, probably on Hillary's web spamming payroll. They are paying people to represent her in forums, read an article some million or millions figure budgeted to propagandize web forums. There is, actually, much enmity with a Biblical Christian view on TOL, though it's a fact any pastor will tell you only a percentage of their congregation is even saved, there are the wheat and tares, etc. Nothing surprising in this, the same old devil as angel of light gig we all come to expect. To be frank, it gets really boring, to me, like somebody didn't plug the slime leak or something, these inane posts that seem to drip goo, and that's about it. (As if straining for a talking point, "What would the devil say to that?" Posting without getting an answer.)
Last edited:
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
I'd agree to a point. Jefferson had egregious failings as a human being, but he was still one of the greatest minds of his generation and responsible for a great deal of what most people agree is one of the most important documents in the history of mankind. The problem with Trump is that while his failings are as evident, more so than Jefferson's in his time, that's almost entirely where the parallel ends.
Ford was probably the last uncomplicatedly decent human being we accidentally had as president for a short while.
Not much in that I'd agree with. Pro gay rights? Sure, but that's done. Pro Muslim? No idea what that's about. How can you be pro any religious sect in a meaningful, legal sense, without it floating all religious boats? What "Muslim law" is anyone proposing, by way of putting a point on it. Special interests are all over everyone, so there's no real distinction. You could even argue that Trump comes as a living, breathing representative of the rich. No one who wants to be reelected is going to increase taxes on the middle class. Republicans have been as adept as Democrats at growing government, so that's no distinction and no one was disarmed in eight years of Obama, who has typically been to Hillary's left. And God isn't going anywhere in relation to the public square.
And no, I'm not suggesting you or anyone vote for Clinton. I'm not going to cast a vote for either and I'm encouraging anyone, left or right, to do likewise, to write in the candidate you think should have the office and give a resounding no confidence vote to both party leaderships.
On the Graham question, I doubt he would. I'm not even sure it's possible to be a thoroughly moral president. But that doesn't give scoundrels a pass either.
I don't think he's intentionally evil, I think he's told us who he is and where his faith is found, in Donald Trump. I think that would be dangerous in the hands of Jefferson. In a lesser being, down right frightening.
And there you went dramatically off your own rails on the judgment part of approach, so I don't know what to say except that calling someone a whore and comparing supporting her with fornicating with Satan is just...
Rather, Hillary and Trump represent, to my mind, two people dedicated to power over principle. Neither of them have demonstrated any exceptional ability that can begin to overwhelm that (a-la Jefferson) in route to inspiring our support and confidence.
There's no parity between Jefferson and Trump, except perhaps around the zipper, or was it buttons in Jefferson's day? As to the world system, to the Christian who believes the word of God, anybody in bed with the world, to the point of enshrining perversions God calls vile, perverting the sacred marriage covenant, and, of course, persecutions of dissenting fundamentalist Christians, this is throughly in bed with Satan. That you may not go that far, when it comes to advancing agendas of evil, the Bible does, as well as moral conscience, the one disobedient to God and putting forth Satan's agenda a Satanic whore, in no uncertain terms. And there are man whores and women whores, as such. We will have to agree to disagree.
The same as to Muslims, and the liberal agenda has brought rape to the streets of Europe, Obama, in a recent article, trying to slip as many Muslims into the U.S. he can, people who do not believe in democracy or rule of Western law. They would abolish the Constitution, replace it with Sharia. Islam is an antichrist religion, and there is Islamic terrorism, commanded in the Quran, a fact of history and the practice of some evil slave states, before your eyes. It's only a matter of the percentage population Muslims reach until you have the next Saudi Arabia, Iran or Sudan. If you're one of those people that can't believe your lying eyes, or can't see the Satanic agenda of Islam, a person can have a legitimate problem with that. Liberals have never met a Muslim they don't suck the kneecaps of, the Muslim Brotherhood present in the White House. Some of us believe it's time to call the exterminator, again, agree to disagree Islamic terrorism is a matter of political correctness, rather a threat to national security. At least Mr. Trump seems to realize this, call a spade a spade, while liberal snowflakes bury their heads in the sands of political correctness, their own worst enemies, as well as the enemies of others they endanger in their foolishness, who they can't seem to comprehend have rights beyond their twisted and destructive political agendas, which are far from American in character.
musterion
Well-known member
Trump just said the stupidest thing yet re: the 2A. I think I know what he meant but his blunt, off the cuff phrasing is everything the Left wanted and had to manufacture with Palin's map bullseyes. Now he and his comment will be directly blamed for the next shooting, and the Left is not above false flag ops.
Oh man, how stupid.
Oh man, how stupid.
We agree. His parallel ends with egregious fault.
Then this nation and its leaders, by that litmus, have been in league with Satan from the beginning. There hasn't been a time in our history when we didn't institutionalize an evil. Heck, we've let atheists and people of other faiths enter into marriage for most of our history, if you want to approach the subject in relation to religion, though in our compact the state and the religious contract are two separate things.
The problem with your logic is that you don't apply it broadly. You could say the problem with the conservative agenda is that it allows precisely the same thing, since no conservative has ever banned a Muslim from immigrating. Our immigration procedures are among the most exhaustive, and most of the Muslims the President was attempting to take in as political refugees, were and remain the old, women and children. The screening on the rest is about as solid as we can make it. Unless you're promoting an end to immigration I don't know what else we could do...and I don't care for turning away people in dire straits. We did that to many Jews attempting to flee Hitler.
That's not really the case. I did a long bit on that in another thread replete with links. I'll hunt it down if it's unpruned and you're interested. Even in a largely Muslim Turkey, where they've had a western republic for decades, they don't want that. In fact, the more exposure Muslims have to our government the less they want anything else. And among those who do want Sharia, it's almost exclusively a thing they want for civil practices and for Muslims only.
Most of Islam condemns ISIS and is doing most of the dying fighting it. Islam does allow for Holy War, but it has limitations and none of them are representative of what's happening in this fanatical sliver of Islam.
I'm going to leave your issue with liberals for them to address.
What does that mean, practically speaking?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i wonder if you have any data to support that?
i spose a good place to start is by defining "islam", and then "most of islam"
I propose defining "islam" as "that group of people who identify as mooslims", and "most of islam" as "more than 50% of those people"
ClimateSanity
New member
More revealing is to compare Muslims with all Americans in what they put at the top of their concerns. Have everyone put a list of concerns in order from most concerned to least . I'm pretty sure the list Muslims create would put ISIS drastically lower on the list than most Americans .
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Not true my friend. According to Scripture, Donald Trump's ex wives were justified in divorcing the serial adulterer, and can remarry.
Matt. 5:32
It doesn't matter what period you're talking about, Matthew 5:32 is very clear:
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Many theologians wished Jesus would have taken it a step further and said that domestic violence would be grounds as well (there's speculation that He opened that door in 1 Corinthians 7:15).
God doesn't expect a faithful partner in marriage to be treated like dirt and continue on with that marriage, He's much kinder and wiser than you give Him credit for.
Not true my friend. According to Scripture, Donald Trump's ex wives were justified in divorcing the serial adulterer, and can remarry.
Matt. 5:32
False. So-called divorce was during the betrothal period (Mt 19:8). Ivana must remain faithful to him :greedy: even though he was not faithful to her (Matt. 19:6, 11).
See:
Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper
It doesn't matter what period you're talking about, Matthew 5:32 is very clear:
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Many theologians wished Jesus would have taken it a step further and said that domestic violence would be grounds as well (there's speculation that He opened that door in 1 Corinthians 7:15).
God doesn't expect a faithful partner in marriage to be treated like dirt and continue on with that marriage, He's much kinder and wiser than you give Him credit for.
"Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS." PewResearchCenter
That's because you can't approach a subject without being childish...anyway, good luck with all that. I'm out of giving you more than I just did, so after a brief interlude you can hurl "retard" or some similarly inspired bit of nonsense.
In fact, I think you're going on ignore for a while...I don't post your junk in Quixote's anymore so what possible value is there in anything you produce.
Or, to quote you: :wave2:
Last edited:
Of course it matters. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Jesus restored marriage to its original intent (Mt 19:8). People want to take a chance with this mystery?--Knock yourself out (Re 22:11). People have no clue that that is the beginning of the end for them (Eph 5:32, Pr. 2:18, 19, 7:27, Heb 10:28, 13:4, Re 21:8). Most don't understand the meaning of Adam (אָדָ֛ם humankind)--much less marriage. They will (1 Pe 4:18, Mal. 2:14–16, Heb 13:4). :burnlib:
[1 Co 7] There is no guarantee if he gets saved that she will get saved--is the point. Obviously if one is a believer and the other is a devil, the two will not walk in agreement (Am 3:3). Being married to a Christian cramps the style of a reprobate. God's funny. He'll pair you up with what you need to get saved (1 Cor. 7:14–16). This life is full of tests of faith. You rise to the occasion--or not.
He's not supposed to treat her like dirt (Eph. 5:25–33).
lain: If you're married, you're married. I don't know what you mean by "continuing on"? Two become one (Matt. 19:6). God ends a marriage at death (Rom. 7:2, 3) not man when the next skirt walks by (Ro 1:28). Hopefully the Donald :greedy: will repent. If I were a betting person, I'd say that if you're not getting the horizontal relationship right, :listen: you haven't gotten the vertical relationship right. This is what we call in the Greek--a no brainer.
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It doesn't matter what period you're talking about...
Thanks for bringing up the Old Testament. God takes sexual sins seriously, so serious that He told the Israelites to put adulterers to death: (pssst: When the adulterer was put to death, man was responsible for 'separating' the husband and wife).
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20
Jesus did away with the penalty phase of sexual sins in the New Testament, giving those the opportunity to repent and accept Him as
their Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean that the wife can't move on with her life if the adulterous husband chooses to remarry and start another family.
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Many theologians wished Jesus would have taken it a step further and said that spousal abuse would be grounds as well (there's speculation that He opened that door in 1 Corinthians 7:15).
Hence 1 Corinthians 7:15 gave grounds for a wife to leave her unrepentant physical or mentally abusive husband.
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
God doesn't expect a faithful partner in marriage to be treated like dirt and continue on with that marriage...
Hence the reason God gives few exceptions for allowing for divorce.
Continuing on in a
broken marriage that has no chances of becoming what God expects of married couples.
LOL, you're so naïve.
I've never looked to you before for biblical wisdom, what makes you think that I am now?
It doesn't matter what period you're talking about...
Thanks for bringing up the Old Testament. God takes sexual sins seriously, so serious that He told the Israelites to put adulterers to death: (pssst: When the adulterer was put to death, man was responsible for 'separating' the husband and wife).
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20
Jesus did away with the penalty phase of sexual sins in the New Testament, giving those the opportunity to repent and accept Him as
their Lord and Savior. That doesn't mean that the wife can't move on with her life if the adulterous husband chooses to remarry and start another family.
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Many theologians wished Jesus would have taken it a step further and said that spousal abuse would be grounds as well (there's speculation that He opened that door in 1 Corinthians 7:15).
Hence 1 Corinthians 7:15 gave grounds for a wife to leave her unrepentant physical or mentally abusive husband.
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
God doesn't expect a faithful partner in marriage to be treated like dirt and continue on with that marriage...
Hence the reason God gives few exceptions for allowing for divorce.
Continuing on in a
broken marriage that has no chances of becoming what God expects of married couples.
LOL, you're so naïve.
I've never looked to you before for biblical wisdom, what makes you think that I am now?