Featured Donald Trump accepts Christ

I believe your academic expertise is in theology, which I have found you to be more than capable of and highly knowledgeable in! lack the credential to wander off into psychiatric advice, so try staying in your own backyard when it comes to issues that are out of your academic reach, Dr. Ted!

 

Unfortunately, I am. I never thought it would happen, but Trump in a clear and present danger to the American Experiment. I am casting a vote in for Ms. Clinton to prevent Mr. Trump from obtaining power.

I CANNOT VOTE AGAINST THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

I have NEVER claimed anything else no matter how much you want to accuse me of dishonesty. You're sounding like Trump yourself.

 

I know that this is the popular position in Western Christendom, but Jesus taught differently:
Matthew 7:17-23
"In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’"

Obviously we have to be careful how we judge and give consideration to how mature one is in the faith, but a person who is truly converted has repented (reoriented their life toward Christ) and is pursuing God. There will be at least some change immediately, with more to follow.

 

So you "Disagree" when I tell you that I have been planning to vote for Ms. Clinton and have never denied it - and even provided a bit of evidence?

You're disagreeing with FACTS.

Find JUST ONE post on this website where I have even claimed I was interested in voting for Trump! When I have mentioned such a thing, I have consistently asserted I was voting AGAINST Trump for specific reasons.

Your "Disagree" is just a childish swipe against me because your false accusation has been exposed.

 

I cannot disagree with your assessment of Trump. I do disagree with the decision to vote for Clinton, but I understand it.

My own opinion. There is much of the same atmosphere as early 1930s Germany, and certain people want a Strong Man to fix things. Very, very dangerous. This is what concerns me about him.

 

This reeks of urban legend language. A friend of a friend, no dates, no specifics just that Dobson heard from someone that Trump got saved. And then we have Dobson trying to lay down cover for Trump because even he has to admit that there has been no evidence of conversion in Trump. I have been absolutely disgusted with how evangelicals have been fawning over him this week, but than I found out that even some in my fundementalist circles were included in that group of 1000 and that made it even worse. 8 years ago we all watched the left fawn over their messiah, and to me it was par for the course, but now to watch the altright, do the same thing has made me reevaluate my political paradigm.
#NEVERTRUMP

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

I took a class on WW2 and Germany back when Obama was first elected and there was a book we had to read that I thought fit Obama well but think first Trump even better. It's called the Holter Myth, and the point of the book was talking about how Hitler and Gobbles were really good at creating multiple myths about Hitler and any of those could projected as needed. For example he made himself up to be a military genius, he also made himself to fit the volkish ideals of the father, hence his title.
I realize that even brining up Hitler is considered to be a losing argument on the Internet but I also know that we have history to learn from, although it's clear to me the only thing we learn from history is we don't learn from history.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

The math doesn't support this statement.

Let's say you have six voters. Of the first five, 3 vote for Trump, and 2 vote for Clinton. As it currently stands, Trump is winning 60%-40%.

The 6th person has 4 choices:
1) vote for Trump, making it 67%-33% (Trump wins)
2) vote for Clinton, making it 50%-50% (run-off)
3) vote for a 3rd party, making it 50%-33%-16% (Trump wins)
4) don't vote, making it 50%-33% (Trump wins)

In the case of only 5 voters, with #5 being the deciding vote--if #5 votes 3rd party or doesn't vote, then the election goes to a run-off.

Thus, the only way you can make the argument that voting 3rd party or not voting is a vote for Hillary, is by admitting there aren't enough votes for Trump to be elected in the first place.

 

I would ask you to re-examine your opinion. If Clinton follows the same strategy as Obama, then there is as much threat to the First Amendment as there is by Trump. Trump is just more obvious. Her actions regarding her personal email server, and the reasons she had it set up, are proof of this.

Clinton is also a serious threat to the Second and other amendments.

Clinton is also a staunch advocate for abortion, same sex rights and privileges, etc.

So if your position hinges on the First Amendment, I ask you to please consider in whole, not just in part.

 

It is math like this, as well as rationalization, which is why we have Obama in Office for two terms.

You do not calculate your impact on undecided voters. So your equation is lacking all relevant issues involved, which means you cannot possibly arrive at a legitimate conclusion.

You are also denying the impact of propaganda on the undecided vote. Whether the propaganda is from Trump or Clinton supporters, we have to be realistic in understanding that the undecided vote is usually not a matter of principle, it is a response to propaganda.

You, Don, may have a very real impact on the undecided vote, which is not the same as you viewing your own vote as based on principle. The question is, is it really?

I have to question that, because I can in no way rationalize any vote that would not help to keep Clinton out of office. Not from a Christian perspective. We know that Clinton will advance the Liberal Agenda...we don't know that about Trump.

All I would ask is everyone here that thinks Clinton will do anything but harm to Conservative worldview and not continue the "Progress" of Obama...

...please raise your hand.

The math is simple: there are only two people at this point with the chance of winning. Options 2-4 guarantee that votes which could ensure Clinton doesn't win are lost.

It is not logical to think that not voting will not impact the election.

It is not logical to think that voting third party will result in a third candidate that reflects a Christian worldview (I mean seriously, we're talking about a secular office).

It is not logical to think a vote for Clinton will not further the Homosexual and Abortion agendas.


God bless.

 

The undecided voter is addressed as the 6th voter, Darrell. You know, the one I said has four choices?

ONLY if you believe ALL democrats will vote democrat; and that democrats far outnumber those who would vote for Trump.

Oh, wait; I already addressed that, too, when I said you had to make the assumption that Trump doesn't have enough votes to win....

As I mentioned in my post to Baptist Believer where I asked him/her to reconsider voting for Clinton, and laid out several reasons why.

 

It would be nice to think that this is true and I certainly hope it is.
'Every good tree bears good fruit' (Matthew 7:17). I hope you see some good fruit before next October or whenever the vote is.

 

Problem with that logic is that a stand for neither fails to have the value to stand against the greater evil, and in fact if all Christians were buy into such inaction in the belief that God controls the situation it runs into the eerie resemblance of the theological beliefs of some that we should have faith in the healing power and control of God over a sick person and therefore not bother to medically treat the patient.

As for “talking into” – In the interests of truth - If an argument presents good reason to believe the decisions use to form the conscience are based on false conclusions then that argument would not necessarily be against them using their conscience but rather against the construct of false thoughts upon which that conscience was built.

 

BTW, I'm wondering if anyone sees the Dr. Dobson's broadcasting of another's (Trump's) personal experiences as rather rude and possibly even gossipy?

 

Yep. And Dobson is getting his news secondhand.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo