SHALL WE ENDORSE EVIL THAT GOOD MAY RESULT?

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If you people believe Trump to be a disgusting creature, take a closer look at Hillary.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If you people believe Trump to be a disgusting creature, take a closer look at Hillary.

"We people" don't base our vote on what the other candidate does. "We people" look at the candidate and see if he or she has what it takes to lead our morally confused nation (integrity and a firm moral stance on the issues); Donald Trump has neither.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Can you really trust a sociopath like Donald Trump to do anything moral? He's been all over the board on numerous issues, and let's not forget his ultra liberal past.



There is no such thing as "trying" in this case. Mike Pence signed legislation protecting religious (i.e. Christian) liberty and backed down when the going got tough. He should take notes from NC Governor Pat McCrory who is still standing strong on the "bathroom bill" even though all of the LGBTQ allies have boycotted his state.

Trump is not a sociopath. He is vulgar and brash and has a strong sexual libido . Not my definition of sociopath.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

"We people" don't base our vote on what the other candidate does. "We people" look at the candidate and see if he or she has what it takes to lead our morally confused nation (integrity and a firm moral stance on the issues); Donald Trump has neither.

:chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim of Obama silencing the gospel.

 

[Crucible]

Paul is addressing a conundrum in where to stand when there is no clear and present option of good. He was speaking to people living in a pagan autocracy which is something to strongly consider- as opposed to us, who live in a secular democracy.

 

[ok doser]

Trump is not a sociopath. He is vulgar and brash and has a strong sexual libido .

yep


that's why he's gonna positively crush hillary! :banana:

 

[kmoney]

Did it make you think of the book Bad Religion?

No, can't say that it did. I take it that it did for you?

 

[kmoney]

No preachers in jail for speaking out about homosexuality?

Have there been?

No people going bankrupt because they refused a gay decoration on a wedding cake? Obama wasn't appointing people who were of that mindset?

I didn't realize that denying a wedding cake to a gay couple was preaching the gospel. lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

No, can't say that it did. I take it that it did for you?

It did.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Have there been?


I didn't realize that denying a wedding cake to a gay couple was preaching the gospel. lain:

Being true to Cbrist is part of it.

 

[kmoney]

It did.

Maybe I'll break it open and check out that chapter.

I did think of it today reading this article. Trump and the Prosperity Gospel vs Clinton and the Social Gospel.

http://lancasteronline.com/features...cle_16d9da90-9239-11e6-a665-6f337e7539e4.html

Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” line may sound like a new campaign slogan, but its sentiment is as old as the country, says Lancaster Theological Seminary professor Lee Barrett.

In a pair of talks to seminary students titled “The Presidential Race and Matters of Faith,” Barrett, professor of systematic theology at the school, offered a striking contrast between Republican nominee Trump, a Presbyterian who largely has been influenced by the prosperity gospel, and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a Methodist who grew up with that denomination’s social gospel.

Trump, Barrett explained, has tapped into the very Puritanical belief of what today is called American exceptionalism.

When the Puritans came to this country, they saw America as the New Israel. They sought to establish a white, Protestant nation.

That belief led to Manifest Destiny — the 19th-century doctrine that the expansion of the United States throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable — and to anti-immigrant fervor that has arisen periodically throughout the nation’s history from the anti-Catholic rhetoric of the 19th and early 20th centuries to the anti-Muslim rhetoric of today.

That has become part of Trump’s appeal among a segment of the electorate.

Trump also has expressed admiration for the late Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, whose book, “The Power of Positive Thinking” was a best-seller in the 1950s.

Although Trump only occasionally attended Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, he bought into Peale’s philosophy which, Barrett explained, was essentially “to put your faith in the power of your own dreams and trust that God will aid you. As long as you can envision success, with God’s help it will come your way.”

Clinton on the other hand, grew up with the Methodist social gospel of the late 19th and 20th centuries that was codified in Methodist doctrine in 1908.

“From the very beginning,” Barrett explained, “(Methodists) stressed civil rights, they affirmed the ethnicities in God’s creation, they championed the early labor movement, were suspicious of big business and were very concerned about education.

“Their main theme,” he continued, “was that if you want to love your neighbor, it’s not enough to just be charitable ... or benevolent. You need to engage in the political process to change social structures so that your neighbor will benefit.”

That philosophy applied then, as it does now, not just to Americans but to people around the world.

It is, Barrett suggested, one of the reasons Clinton has a hard time articulating her religious views on the campaign trail. While Trump engages in “America First” rhetoric, Clinton believes that a rising economic tide in this country also should raise standards of people around the world. That is a “hard sell” in a campaign, Barrett said.

Once “a fire-breathing Democratic liberal,” as a law school student, Clinton came under the influence of theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, who dismissed liberal idealism and pushed pragmatism.

That thinking has led Clinton to sometimes work around the edges of issues to accomplish goals, Barrett said. That approach also has led her to be more cagey. And that secretiveness — her emails being one example — has become an issue in the presidential campaign.

 

[kmoney]

Paul is addressing a conundrum in where to stand when there is no clear and present option of good. He was speaking to people living in a pagan autocracy which is something to strongly consider- as opposed to us, who live in a secular democracy.

I think that is an important point to keep in mind when discussing matters of faith and scripture and voting.

 

[ok doser]

listened to this last night while i was working in the shop - dunno if you're familiar with de toqueville, but you should be

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/tocqueville-s-america-revisited-part-1-1.3803726

 

[kmoney]

There are political candidates who, while they might have some personal flaws, don't stand for immoral behavior and legislation. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton defend immoral behavior and will legislate accordingly.

I tend to agree about Trump. He seems to be a particularly clear example of someone who lacks integrity. But when the author talked about moral disqualification I couldn't help but wonder where he draws the line. As I said in another thread, any evangelical that votes for Trump loses any and all standing to denounce other candidates because of morality. Republican or Democrat.

Would you trust a candidate to legislate wisely if he or she has no self control over his or her own behavior?

:idunno: It might depend on the specific behaviors and legislative issues. What worries me about Trump's ability to lead isn't his behavior with women. It's his temperament and lack of consistency on issues. But if you would argue that his temperament and his lack of self-control in his personal life are related then I wouldn't argue.

A good portion of Trump supporters weren't Republicans, never have been and never will be again. They crossed Party lines to help elect a "populist" (a nice word for a liberal in disguise), someone who they might not agree with on all issues, but the core ones they do.

I agree. I've heard stories about areas with traditionally Democratic union members who were switching sides to vote for Trump because of his strong words about bringing jobs back. That was a while ago so I'm not sure if those people are still with Trump but I wouldn't doubt it.

That's what amazes me about well known Christian pastors and Evangelical leaders backing Donald Trump. Do they really think that a sexual deviant psychopath can be trusted once in power to live up to his promises? Look who gave us the SCOTUS Judges responsible for Roe v Wade.

Hatred for Clinton can make people do some amazing things I guess.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There are political candidates who, while they might have some personal flaws, don't stand for immoral behavior and legislation. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton defend immoral behavior and will legislate accordingly.

I tend to agree about Trump. He seems to be a particularly clear example of someone who lacks integrity. But when the author talked about moral disqualification I couldn't help but wonder where he draws the line. As I said in another thread, any evangelical that votes for Trump loses any and all standing to denounce other candidates because of morality. Republican or Democrat.

I figure if a political candidate can't get the basics right (protecting innocent human life as well as understanding the basis when it comes to human sexuality: one man, one woman, united in matrimony, something God set the standard on early on in the OT), how can a person expect that politician to get other things right?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Would you trust a candidate to legislate wisely if he or she has no self control over his or her own behavior?

It might depend on the specific behaviors and legislative issues. What worries me about Trump's ability to lead isn't his behavior with women. It's his temperament and lack of consistency on issues. But if you would argue that his temperament and his lack of self-control in his personal life are related then I wouldn't argue.

One's personal life usually reflects his or her political worldview.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
A good portion of Trump supporters weren't Republicans, never have been and never will be again. They crossed Party lines to help elect a "populist" (a nice word for a liberal in disguise), someone who they might not agree with on all issues, but the core ones they do.

I agree. I've heard stories about areas with traditionally Democratic union members who were switching sides to vote for Trump because of his strong words about bringing jobs back. That was a while ago so I'm not sure if those people are still with Trump but I wouldn't doubt it.

I guarantee you that his liberal social views has something to do with it as well.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That's what amazes me about well known Christian pastors and Evangelical leaders backing Donald Trump. Do they really think that a sexual deviant psychopath can be trusted once in power to live up to his promises? Look who gave us the SCOTUS Judges responsible for Roe v Wade.

Hatred for Clinton can make people do some amazing things I guess.

From a conservative and Christian standpoint (you can be the former without being the latter, but not the latter without also being the former) : What's to like about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party?

On that note: Thanks for sharing a thought provoking article and engaging in civil and intelligent conversation, which IMO doesn't happen too often anymore here in the political forum of TOL.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

 

[kmoney]

The Trump Train and their black person dog and pony show. :the_wave: