Trump and Voting
The problem with voting for any presidential candidate that has a chance of winning is encapsulated in the phrase “voting for the lesser evil.” Since when should a follower of Christ be supporting anyone who is evil? The kingdoms of this world belong to Satan and by their nature states are basically gangs of thieves writ large. Only the most ruthless of people can ascend to the top. Not only that, but the gang vets anyone who would be its leader, so the choice boils down to one of the candidates chosen by the gang. What therefore is the point of voting for a presidential candidate? The charade of voting only seeks to pacify the populace and for the Christian, at the least, it is nothing but a distraction from the work of the gospel, at worst, it is working to build the kingdom of the enemy of Christ. While Paul admonishes to pray for our rulers that we may live peaceably, he never advocates involvement in the affairs of Rome. It boils down to what kingdom do we belong to? What kingdom should we be building? The great struggle of history is not one of good vs. evil, but God’s kingdom vs. man’s/Satan’s. I could go on regarding the corruption of politics on the pro-life movement, etc., but don’t want to distract from the main message—God’s kingdom is not of this world, nor are we citizens of this world. Why should we be entangled in its affairs? Surely, this teaching is plainly taught by Paul. Mr. Wilson, I welcome your comments on this topic.
Scott
Scott, thanks for the input. Your position has a long legacy within Christianity, and you articulate it well. But you speak of the corruption of the pro-life movement. Given your premises, should there even be a pro-life movement?
I believe that you are assuming that Trump is not a godly man. Yet this president has shown every sign of having been converted to Christianity. He has restored the weekly Bible study to the White House, and meets frequently with pastors for prayer. He loves the nation of Israel, and is passing laws to protect the unborn [defunding the pure evil planned parenthood]. That’s good enough evidence for many Christians.
Karen
Karen, you are right in that I assuming Trump is still unconverted. But I also see conversation as a prospect and a possibility.
Interesting article. I believe you could have also stated that God knew the cancer had been in full attack prior to the 2016 election, and he said enough. My flawed man Donald J. Trump is my chosen vessel for righting the Ship of State. Without His intervention we would never have known the depth of corruption. The Plan, after all, was for Hillary to cover Obama’s tracks, her own, Comey, Brennan et al. But God changed that on November 8, 2016. Trump is making America great again and the recent coup attempt will result in a number of the “power players” ending up in the slammer. MAGA to 2024!!
Edward
Edward, thanks for sharing.
I had no qualms about voting for Trump. It’s just like I would have no qualms about killing an intruder trying to take my kids. Trump is not a good man but I don’t really expect a President to be so anymore. Trump’s a fighter and those Dems are crazy lunatics (trying to take my kids). The last election was the first one of my 17-year marriage that my husband and I voted for the same person. He usually votes some random Constitutional party or something but I am a realist and we live in an area where we feel the crazy most acutely. I begged him to see it my way for the sake of the Supreme Court at least. What an absolute mic drop to see my blue-ish state swing red in the middle of that fateful night. I was glad I worked hard to convince people to hold their noses and take their medicine. Self-preservation in 2016 and self-preservation in 2020. This is no time for conscientious objectors.
Kat
Kat, thanks.
I think you are tracking well with my and others thoughts who voted for Trump. I mean, I know he’s ridiculous and it was a risk. He may very well have run left of what he was on the campaign trail. I was willing to take that risk because as we can all see now Hillary was/is the deep state (which is quite real). My conscience was and is clean with voting for him. Frankly, I think many evangelicals who rejected Trump have been going off the rails for a while concerning their understanding of being both a citizen of heaven and of this world (not including you of course). Trump is despicable in a certain way, but not like Hillary. There are times I shake my head and say “not again, Donald,” but you and I know that after two years of frequent juvenile tweets and maddening sound bytes he’s not just a bit better than Hillary, but vastly better than her. He is like the crazy uncle, but better that than a power-mad Hillary running the show. Next on my reading list The Case for Trump.
Ron
Ron, yes. And one of the things we must distinguish is voting as decision-making and voting as secular sacrament.
Let me say from the outset that I did not like Trump prior to voting for him, nor do I like him now. He is a louse who has had three wives, takes to his Twitter account at all times of the day and night and has orange hair—yuk! Plus, have you seen the gaudy decor in his NYC penthouse? I mean, really? Whew, now that I have established my Christian credibility, I can say what I want to. Which is this; do any of us agonize and pray for godly repentance from sin in this country nearly as much as we get worked up over who to vote for? Why must we constantly state our loathing of this man before we cheer for his governance? At some point, can’t we get over the need to polish our own reputations first and just go for it? I don’t need to tell you all how righteous I am before I tell you that I love Donald Trump more than any president in my lifetime. He is not my pastor (I’ve got a fantastic one, btw).
Melody
Melody, you have proven yourself fully.
On the chemo metaphor, who is the wise Doctor that is doing the drug administration and tailoring the chemo (DJT) to discriminate against the disease; and not the healthy parts of the body? Can this chemo be restrained/tailored if we authorize another 4 year dose?
Jess
Jess, for some time now I have looked at the Trump administration and wondered more what God is doing than what Trump is doing. I think that if we devised such a chemo plan, it would be reckless and ill-advised. But if God determined it, then at some point in the process I think we are responsible to see it and be grateful. So my thesis is that God is the doctor overseeing this gaudy grace.
My thoughts on Trump are perhaps best expressed by a quote from Erasmus about his sparring partner Luther: “God has sent in this latter age a violent physician on account of the magnitude of the existing disorders.”
Joseph
Joseph, thank you.
Hansen’s book is excellent. If you want to know what the other side thinks, read this: The only true thing about this book is that IT is dangerous. God specializes in using unqualified people. Fortunately the Doctor who ordered the chemo is trustworthy, though it is still uncertain if the patient will survive.
Phillip
Phillip, thanks.
Re: “I say this as I have come to the decision that—if things remain largely the same as they are now—I will be voting for the president.” Whew! I wrote last October about my decision to vote for President Trump in the next election (I too did not vote for him in 2016), and have been sweating ever since. Even though you had hinted you might be heading this way, it is uncomfortable stepping out from under the cover of your wise counsel, if even for a few months. I feel much better now. Thank you.
Bill
Bill, thanks for the compliment. But many of you have been ahead of me in figuring this out.
I’m having trouble parsing some of the nuances here. There are two issues that I think are at the core of my confusion. 1. Isn’t Chemotherapy the very definition of “the ends justify the means,” in that you ingest something toxic in order to have a positive outcome afterwards? 2. If “Character matters,” how is Trump qualified in any situation? Assuming the Democrats never nominate a pro-life candidate doesn’t this effectively mean that any Republican nominee will always be the lesser of two evils in comparison? And at what point is character disqualifying? Furthermore, what does nominating the right judges have to do with moral character? To invent a plausible hypothetical, if Trump were found to have encouraged a paramour to have an abortion, would that be disqualifying or would it not be so long as his nominees are all pro-fife?
Paul
Paul, I follow your questions. But the actual question is what does a vote mean? Does a vote for Trump mean “yes, I believe he is qualified, and as a magnificent specimen of a man,” or does it mean “I have solid warrant for believing this modestly good state of affairs will be continued”? If the former, we cannot lie at the ballot box. But if the latter, then we can vote on pragmatic grounds, and have our vote accompanied by our “signing statements.” And on whether chemo is the very definition of the “ends justifies the means,” think of it this way: an ungodly man nominating sane judges is what I mean by chemo, and an authoritarian round-up of liberal dissenters to put them in concentration camps would be an evil “ends justifying the means.”
If Kamala Harris wins, I would almost certainly vote for Trump, because Kamala condemns as hateful anyone who does not support transgenderism and abortion (and who is not pro-immigration,) and she dated a married man in the 1990s, and as far as I know has not repented of it, which takes away the question of personal morality. If a decent but misguided candidate such as Jay Inslee or Amy Klobuchar wins, I am unsure if I would vote for anyone. I am not convinced that Trump is really pro-life, let alone pro-marriage, and it is still possible that he will no longer care about it once he is elected to his last term. Also, Trump’s declaration in his state of the Union address that he supports mass immigration—as long as it’s legal—is a concern to me, even though that is not quite a black-and-white issue. The judges are worth considering, but would he appoint another Gorsuch or Kavanaugh if Breyer retired in 2021, and he no longer needed to worry about being reelected? We won’t know until it happens.
James
James, that is correct. We won’t know. And if we are double-crossed, it won’t be the first time!
It seems more likely that the presidential candidate choices presented to us in 2016—and those likely to be presented to us in 2020—is a judgment on the nation (although one that’s tempered with mercy, per your commentary). I haven’t yet sorted out what submitting to that judgment might look like at the ballot box in 2020. It could end up looking like voting for Trump, but if so, it will be in sackcloth and ashes, rather than with oil to make my face shine.
Blake
Blake, yes. Judgment tempered with mercy. Exactly.
I’ve been struggling with this same thing. Voted for my mother and continued to use the #NeverTrump for several months after his inauguration. That said, I have been pleased to have been proven wrong so far. Your assessment is helping me get over myself.
Chris
Chris, thanks.
Social Justice
Re: Engaging The Culture: Hi. I was wondering if you are familiar with Brannon Howse. He is now claiming that John Macarthur has surrendered to Social Justice. Any thoughts?
Bruce
Bruce, no, I don’t believe he has surrendered at all. But I do believe he has recently discovered how far advanced the rot is in his circles. We will see what happens.
More on Prophetic Language
Love this post. One note: MISS Grundy is a contemporary cartoon character; you meant to write MRS Grundy. Keep on.
Kenneth
Kenneth, thanks, and I stand corrected.
On Speaking Prophetically: I loved your explanation for why you described the Lutheran she-pastor unit as a c***. You were not merely digging in your heels; you were making a sound case for why Christians ought to exercise more boldness in their dealings with this insane culture “profligating” all around us. You remind me of a time I never experienced when preachers cared not one whit for what people thought of them but “preached it” anyway . . . and then took up arms to shoot the British. Or the Yankees. Or the Japs. But I have a question. On the one hand, this is a rousing good speech and worthy of emulation. On the other hand, what is a non-preacher (vocationally) like me to do when I use such language in my office building? I know good and well that speaking out against the approved insanity (even with softer, approved words) will get me fired or sent to HR-approved re-education camps, and that the livelihood of my wife and children will come to a screeching halt should I be so bold as you have exampled. I am inspired to add a little prophetic language to my daily conversations in the hopes that I can stave off the cultural cancer just a tad longer or even convince some to remove the scales from their eyes, yet I must admit to fear of the consequences. Advice?
Malachi
Malachi, this is going to sound trite, but my answer is prayer and Bible study. The Bible has a template for saints in all kinds of situations. Some go in to prophesy to the king, like John the Baptist. They do it with their heads up, and then lose their heads. Others, like Obadiah in the time of Jezebel, work in Ahab’s court, and use their influence to hide and protect prophets of the Lord. It is not all prophesy all the time, and it is not all strong language all the time. Let your speech be gracious, Paul says, seasoned with salt.
Thank you, pastor, for thinking and expressing outside the box of nice to mean. May God continually use you to free the inhabitants of the many Christian thought ghettos.
Paul
Paul, thank you.
Re: nature of prophetic language. The satirical twitter account Titania McGrath is doing more to advance Christ’s cause than most Christians in the public eye. The progressive madness is such that there can be no dialogue, only mockery. Her recent crude tweet sums us up as society so appallingly well: “Heterosexual sex is repugnant unless it involves a female penis and a male vagina.”
Ben
Ben, yes. And when the reckoning finally comes, those who have bent themselves to accommodate the ridiculous will find themselves . . . ridiculous.
“‘Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.’ One of the experts in the law answered him, ‘Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.’ Jesus replied, ‘And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them’ (Luke 11:43-46). “‘Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’ When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say” (Luke 11:52-54).
And so, Jesus swung “the battle axe of godly and crude expressions of truth.” And the Sanctimonious Slander Sorority, predictably, pitched a hissy fit.
Jason
Jason, thank you.
Very grateful for you, Pastor Doug. You have opened my eyes on this whole issue. What is better than a man of God clinging to God’s Word? Very grateful.
Dave
Dave, thanks.
Regarding acting as though I see what is happening . . . As a chaplain in a correctional institution, I have developed selective hearing. I’ll hear more cursing outside my office door than in most R-rated movies for any similar length of time. For that matter, I’ll hear close to that in hushed conversations between inmates as they gather for chapel. I tend to ignore it unless it is pointedly addressed to me or it comes up in conversation, since sexual immorality and all sorts of other assorted immorality abounds among my “parishioners,” and I try to preach with that in mind. I guess one way to improve in this area is to lose the selective hearing when we gather to worship. I don’t want to be afraid to address sin, But I work in such a sin-saturated environment that I can’t deal with all of it, all the time. I was going to ask for more specific advice regarding seeing and saying, but I think I answered a bit of that for myself in writing. Thanks.
B
B, I think you did too. There is a difference between avoiding a difficult topic, on the one hand, and starting with the weightier matters, on the other.
Observation
Example of Cognitive Dissonance by Democrats: 1) “The minimum age for voting should be lowered to 16 because they are mature enough to vote.” 2) “The minimum age for owning a firearm should be raised to 21 because of the immaturity of those under 21.”
KJQ
K, may I call you K? Yes, exactly.
Post Script on Vaccines
Before you read any further, we have vaccinated all our kids. I am decidedly in the vaccinate-your-kids camp. But what do you suppose accounts for the cult-like zeal for optional vaccinations such as the flu shot? I’m seeing the usual members of the PeeCee vanguard cheerleading on this, for example, camera-licious Justin Trudeau doing a flu-glam photo-op. Any time they all agree on something, it triggers me and sets my antennae twitching. And then I see bizarre contrasts like this one: Walgreens and CVS are giving away flu shots for free—and when does Big Pharma “give away” anything?—but when I recently had to renew my tetanus vaccination, they demanded my insurance card, photo ID, and $165 in Federal Reserve notes. I was all like, say wha . . .? Something weird’s afoot here. I just haven’t figured out exactly what it is. So what do you make of all this? Kind regards,
Steve
Steve, I just wish there was a vaccine against statist power grabs.
“[A]n authoritarian round-up of liberal dissenters to put them in concentration camps would be an evil ‘ends justifying the means.’” This brings up an interesting point regarding Romans 13. In this passage it appears that Paul is teaching that the government’s primary role is to wield the sword to protect the innocent and punish the wicked in order to maintain order and stability in society. Nowhere is complete freedom of dissent commanded by Paul or anyone else in Scripture. I think it’s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which social order can be greatly disrupted, even destroyed, by free… Read more »
Ah, another polite, theoretical post hoping Pastor Doug will join you in your demand that all the Jooz be rounded up and put into camps. I am assuming you have enough intellectual honesty not to pretend that you are referring to some other tribe who you think owns the media and is using it for hostile, degenerate, and subversive purposes. Has it ever occurred to you that if 2% of the population is able to own the other 98% and bend it to its will, then that two percent must be extraordinarily brilliant or the other 98% must be extraordinarily… Read more »
Jill,
I’m trying to make a reasonable point and have a reasonable discussion with whoever wants to respond (yes, I did name Doug, but this was an open comment for anyone to interact with). The question I raised was an honest one, and I’m genuinely interested in how other people would deal with it. There’s no hatred or malice in what I’ve said, and I certainly don’t intend harm for any innocent person, regardless of race, color, or creed.
Armin, perhaps I misunderstood you. Can we clarify this point by point? What I understood you to be asking was whether, in keeping with St, Paul to the Romans, the government should use the power of the sword to protect the innocent and punish the guilty in the event that a “foreign tribe” moves into your country and abuses that’s country’s hospitality by taking over the media, promulgating degenerate and subversive ideas, and shutting down the free speech of those who oppose its nefarious schemes. Have I understood you correctly? It seems clear to me that you identify this wicked… Read more »
Jill, I’m trying to challenge assumptions people have about free speech absolutism. You seem to want to equate the use of the sword with mass extermination or genocide, but the “sword” is any use of coercion to protect the nation from foreign and domestic threats. Border walls are part of that “sword.” Is putting up a wall equal to genocide? Suppose a large group of foreigners, let’s say the Romani, moved into your town, and from the very beginning did nothing but cause problems. Let’s say they’re loud, dirty, rude, and disruptive, they commit enormous amounts of crime, they’re lazy… Read more »
Jill, how did you conclude that he was speaking of Jews? My mind never went there; though it did with some other ethnic groups. Or is there a history with Armin with which I am unaware? (entirely possible)
Melody,
You just have to look at the buzz words to know what is going on… but yes Armin is (one of) our locan antisemites:
*Foreign Tribe
*considerable business and salesmanship skills
*control mass media
*subversive
*degenerate
*anti-christian
*anti-traditional
Not exactly talking about the Somalis!
I’m just surprised “banker” and “globalist” didn’t get top billing.
No, I won’t suppose.
Armin, This is a very odd way to frame a question about free speech absolutism (which I am not in favor of, in principle). Usually when we debate free speech, the question is whether we can pass laws that restict certain kinds of speech – and then those restrictions apply to everyone. Indeed that is how our system works – incitement to violence and defamation are typically illegal. We can argue about whether these rules should be strengthened/expanded or weakened/abandoned in good faith. That is a conversation about free speech. However, your example is where a group engages in speech… Read more »
Furthermore, Armin,
“Let’s say that it’s clear to you that 1) this is all done with the intention of destroying your country, and 2) these people don’t believe in free speech for their opposition as you do.”
If these things are clear to you as generalized traits of any large group of people (tribe) you are a delusional nitwit who should never be near power. This fantasy that the Jews are trying to destroy America is incredibly stupid. How would it possibiy improve the prospects or standing of world Jewry if America was destroyed?
Demo, With my Romani example I demonstrated that it is possible that a situation could arise in which a certain group or groups could be incompatible with our society to such an extent that honoring Romans 13 would require arranging the situation such that they would no longer be here (however that were to be done). The question I’m raising is simply, does destructive speech coupled with control over the outlets of speech qualify as that? Could it ever under any circumstance? You haven’t addressed that. You offered the alternative of suppressing certain types of speech, which is valid, although… Read more »
Armin, There is a lot in your response, so I’ll take it in pieces as I have time. Please excuse my typos, I’m mashing all of these comments out on a phone. Re: Free Speech I’m sure there are many on this board who are uncomfortable with any restriction on free speech. I’m not one of them. Laws curtailing speech should be based on prudence, but they should apply to all equally there is no reason to violate equal protection under the law on this front and say group X is not allowed to write newspapaer articles, but everyone else… Read more »
Demo, The rationale is that the organized Jewish activist community is taking advantage of liberal Western values regarding free speech in order to destroy the West, and they’re doing it intentionally for the benefit of their own group interests. This is something we should find outrageous. It’s not just that they happen to have come across these bad ideas and happen to be hurting us by promoting them. This is tribal warfare (a point I addressed previously and would like for you to address). People like you and Doug want to keep everything in the realm of bad ideas vs.… Read more »
Armin, “The rationale is that the organized Jewish activist community is taking advantage of liberal Western values regarding free speech in order to destroy the West” The problem is Armin, that you cant just assert these sorts of things. This is an extraordinary claim and it will require extraordinary evidence and references to Kevin MacDonald just ain’t gonna cut it. Furthermore, you would need to explain why limiting the alleged bad behavior with laws which don’t violate the principal of equal protection would be ineffective. You haven’t even shown me that the media is “substantially controlled” by Jews, much less… Read more »
Armin,
Could you at least answer for me how International Jewry would come out ahead if America was destroy or overrun by barbarians? If you are claiming these people are so talented that they basically have mind control over the remaining 98% of the sheeple (except you!) then surely they aren’t working against their interests.
Also on this- “Also, I suggested that with substantial control of the media, they could ensure that no legislation curtailing free speech could ever pass. And even if it were passed, it’s only a half measure, as it would still allow them to remain here with all of their rights intact and to continue to influence society in a variety of ways.” Just what do you have in mind? If you can’t do what you want to do through the legal/political process because our Jewish overlords control all of the sheeple just what do you want done? A military coup… Read more »
Armin, I think perhaps I speak for most people in saying that a debate about ethnic cleansing–condemned as a crime against humanity by virtually everyone except Hitler, Milosevic, the Hutis, and the guys on the wrong side of the Armenian genocide–is not merely pointless but also off the table for anyone with a functioning moral sense. You may be right that frank discussion about rounding up and expelling America’s Jews is made more difficult by the media’s unwillingness to give opinions like yours a platform. All the same, it is not only Jews who find any such discussion morally repulsive,… Read more »
Jill, The history of Jews in white gentile societies is what it is. They’ve been kicked out of hundreds of countries and territories for doing the very things they’re doing now. A situation in which Jews are intimately involved in the mass media, politics, and culture of a white gentile society, in which globalism, egalitarianism, and strange sexuality are promoted, and where tradition, nationalism, and cultural cohesion are destroyed, is simply not sustainable. Nationalism is natural; globalism is not. That’s why they have to work so hard to suppress nationalist sentiment. Maybe instead of berating me, you should think about… Read more »
Armin, the fact that Jews having been expelled from numerous societies over the centuries proves nothing about whether they have innate qualities that make them objectionable. One could equally argue that anti-Semitism is an innate characteristic of Christian gentiles, and that envy, resentment of the alien, and a lingering belief that modern Jews should be blamed for the death of Jesus combine to make a toxic brew. Unfortunately, it is a brew that seems appetizing to those who blame others for their own lack of financial and professional success, and to those who feel threatened by rapid social and demographic… Read more »
Jill,
You don’t owe this any explanation, and I wouldn’t dignify it with discussion. Just work and pray for a society governed by rational soft-spoken adults with a big stick at the ready.
On Jewish control of the media: You way overstate your case here. Rupert Murdoch isnt a Jew (despite some rumors in the corners of the internet you likely frequent) and he controls one of the most powerful mass media empires. WaPo is owned by non-Jew Bezos. The largest stakeholder in NYT is non-Jew Carlos Slim. These are some of the most prestigious media institutions and they aren’t controlled by Jews given any reasonable definition of the term. Also, despite your frenzied tribal telling Jews are absolutely not a monolith. Sheldon Adelson, Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Michelle Goldberg Lloyd Blankfein, Ben… Read more »
Demo, I think everyone knows about Jews controlling Hollywood. They joke about it themselves. https://rense.com/general21/bet.htm (originally published in the L.A. Times). Regarding Jewish control of mass media, in the 80’s a study was conducted which revealed that Jews made up 59% of the American media elite, 24 times over-representation. See the chapter “Jews and the Media.”: https://www.unz.com/book/kevin_macdonald__the-culture-of-critique/ Also: Jeff Zucker – CEO of CNN Bob Iger – CEO of Disney, which controls ABC Les Moonves – CEO of CBS Corporation until his resignation in Sept. 2018. David Rhodes – CEO of CBS News Noah Oppenheimer – President of NBC News… Read more »
Armin, This is pretty weak sauce. Of course I know that Jews are over-represented in the media. Everyone with eyes and ears and a little knowledge of typical Jewish names knows that. I need no education on the topic. Absent additional information, which I have requested, I assume is it like black over-representation in the NBA. It is a mixture of aptitude and cultural values that lead to the discrepancy. I simply don’t believe that Jews in the media are there so they can more effectively act in a concerted effort to “destroy the west” which is your absurd and… Read more »
Demo, What evidence would be sufficient for you to believe that Jewish media control is a major contributor to the current insanity of our society? Should they have 90% of high level positions? Give me some kind of standard of proof. Let me also say, though, that I don’t ultimately consider it my job to have you walk away from this discussion believing exactly as I do. My job isn’t so much to convince you as it is to prime you. Our society in its current state is unsustainable, and with the pain we will all experience in the coming… Read more »
Armin, There is a fascinating movement of the goal posts here. The earlier claim had a few pieces: *The Jews have “substantial control of the media” which is sufficient to control public opinion. *These media Jews are part of “the organized Jewish activist community is taking advantage of liberal Western values regarding free speech in order to destroy the West” Basically: Jews control our information and they are working in a grand conspiracy to destroy western civilization. That is a big, bold (and absurd) claim. Now we have a new claim “Jewish media control is a major contributor to the… Read more »
Armin, This conversation seems to be losing steam, by maybe you will come back with some good hard evidence of Jewish collusion – or maybe a somewhat plausible list of things International Jewry would gain from the destruction of America (I really want ro see this one). But I want to say at least one more thing. You said: “My job isn’t so much to convince you as it is to prime you.” You don’t know me, but when I was in my early 20s I was much more receptive to this stuff. I was a bright kid (like you… Read more »
Demo,
I’ve been wondering why you bother with the conversation at all. I guess having been on the journey (but, happily, having outgrown it) is the explanation. Well meant on your part, but the more Armin writes the more I just figure you had him pegged at delusional nitwit. Up to you of course, but I don’t really see in use in dialogue with the like.
Hey John, Thank you for the note. I was never an anti-semite like Armin, but there was a time, in my early 20s, when these sorts of arguments had me nodding my head. The idea that paleocons are right about everything, and the only reason everyone doesn’t agree is a shadowy anti-American cabal is a powerful meme. I know from hanging around some semi-savory corners of the internet that the view Armin espouses is surprising common. So I feel it deserves an answer. I hope at least one young guy reads this and is diverted from a life of scapegoating.… Read more »
Demo,
I defy you to name one thing I said that was hateful.
Armin,
I think it is pretty hateful to claim that an entire group of people is plotting to destroy their county with absolutely no evidence.
Demo,
I’ve provided evidence of my claims here, and much more in previous discussions with you. However, I have never claimed that “an entire group of people is plotting to destroy” our country. That’s a ridiculous caricature of what I’ve said. Why should I bother providing evidence to you if you’re going to be dishonest?
Armin, I’m not attempting to misrepresent you. There have been a lot of statements on your part that create an accumulation of evidence, but the particular quote I’m referring to is: “the organized Jewish activist community is taking advantage of liberal Western values regarding free speech in order to destroy the West, and they’re doing it intentionally for the benefit of their own group interests.” The only support for this statement was a raw count of Jews in media professions, statements about tribal politics, and handwaving about anti-christian, anti-traditional, etc. If I am misreading you as saying Jews are, as… Read more »
Demo, I think this conversation has become unedifying, and I would ask you to please re-evaluate the way in which you address people who have views that make you uncomfortable, and that you give consideration to Proverbs 15:1 in any future discussions with me. I have not said anything hateful or snide in this discussion, whereas I have the following against you. In just this discussion you have: 1. Accused me of anti-semitism twice. 2. Referred to my points with the scare term “ethnic cleansing.” 3. Committed the fallacy of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” 4. Claimed Jews were white,… Read more »
Armin, My tone is at times harsh, but the reason this conversation is not advancing is not my occassional mild pejorative. It is rather your steady stream of slippery rhetoric, your refusal to deal with evidence when presented and your failure to answer direct questions. I have tried to answer every question you put to me, but you have continually ignored questions at the heart of this debate (asked by myself and others) such as: “Just what do you have in mind? If you can’t do what you want to do through the legal/political process because our Jewish overlords control… Read more »
You have not provided evidence at all.
It would be helpful if you outlined the ways in which you think our society is unsustainable and insane. If you are thinking of the breakdown of marriage and the family, along with declining birth rates, how are the media responsible for these problems? Can you make a case that the media has caused the breakdown of traditional social structures? Or could it be argued that the media has simply responded by providing entertainment that reflects current realities? During the years that the Hays Code was in effect, the major studios were owned by Jews. Movies promoted traditional morality because… Read more »
“Nowhere is complete freedom of dissent commanded by Paul or anyone else in Scripture. ” This is frankly, a flatly ridiculous conclusion. The amount of lattitude God commands you give other people before interfering in their affairs by force is *extremely* wide. Just because he didn’t duplicate the command for governments doesn’t mean that the same principle doesn’t apply. Governments are comprised of individuals, and if individuals aren’t supposed to imprison people for saying something they don’t like, by extension the government isn’t supposed to either because a government can only act through people. ” I think it’s quite easy… Read more »
“The Bible is not a document designed to contain all laws that ought to be made in all places throughout all of world history.”
Well. That’s an un-theonomic thing to say.
John,
Are you a theonomist? You don’t strike me as the type.
Not I. I’m aware of my surroundings though. In fact, I think my good theonomist brethren should have to write that statement on the blackboard one hundred times. Or if they have a sense of humor, only ten times.
Wilson wrote: But the actual question is what does a vote mean? Does a vote for Trump mean “yes, I believe he is qualified, and as a magnificent specimen of a man,” or does it mean “I have solid warrant for believing this modestly good state of affairs will be continued”? I’m not convinced that we have properly explored the question of what a Christian vote means. Unfortunately, Wilson presents a typical false dichotomy here. This is not just a choice between perfectionism and unrestrained pragmatism. One possibility is that a candidate is qualified, and is just an average specimen.… Read more »
Katecho, I would truly vote for you, you’ve earned my respect over the years. But short of that, what christian post-mill or even a faithful arminian pre mill would you choose to vote for? I think we’re not there yet as a nation. Will you vote at all?
Another way to put it–if Katecho is in the U.S. and has been voting age for a while–is “Who have you voted for in recent elections”? I can understand people who refused to vote for Trump, Romney or McCain. But this #NeverTrump but #HoldMyNoseandVoteforSquishyNeocons is a copout.
JP Stewart wrote: Another way to put it–if Katecho is in the U.S. and has been voting age for a while–is “Who have you voted for in recent elections”? I can understand people who refused to vote for Trump, Romney or McCain. But this #NeverTrump but #HoldMyNoseandVoteforSquishyNeocons is a copout. First, I’m not a #NeverTrumper. I think a repentant and humbled Trump would make a great candidate. Of course, if we are talking real repentance, I’m not a #NeverHillaryer either (assuming she avoids imprisonment after properly confessing her past deeds). Second, I’m not from the camp of #HoldMyNoseandVoteforSquishyNeocons either. I… Read more »
JP, Since you didn’t mention Bush, would you include him with Romney and McCain in the Squishy Neocon category? I think he pretty much was there. Not really criticizing you on the point, just wondering since you left Bush out. Were you able to vote for him? While it isn’t hard to point out what was wrong with any of the above, it is simply that what was wrong with them is not the the same kind of thing that is wrong with Trump. That is why there are people who could hold their nose and vote for Bush, Romney,… Read more »
JohnM wrote:
Just to clarify, for this discussion I’m interested in exploring the set of criteria and qualifications that have the authority of God’s Word. I’m not so interested, right now, in whatever other individual criteria folks may wish to add on top of that in making their own selection.
“Since you didn’t mention Bush, would you include him with Romney and McCain in the Squishy Neocon category? I think he pretty much was there. Not really criticizing you on the point, just wondering since you left Bush out.”
Yes, and I’m pretty sure I mentioned the Bushes in another comment. They’re in the same camp.
* another comment in another thread. I can’t edit comments, upvote/downvote or anything else besides type comments…though I’m considered a “Member.”
Try logging out and then back in.
Sometimes the edit buttons don’t show up for me just after posting a new comment. But if I reload the page my new comment is moved to the end of the list and the edit button is present. Also, sometimes I’m not able to upvote or downvote until I log out and log back in again. Kind of clunky, but it doesn’t happen too often.
Katecho, I tried a bunch of things (including that), then gave up. It’s okay–not a fan of voting up and down anyway. Editing would be nice, though.
Paul Ewart wrote: Katecho, I would truly vote for you, you’ve earned my respect over the years. But short of that, what christian post-mill or even a faithful arminian pre mill would you choose to vote for? I think we’re not there yet as a nation. Will you vote at all? Thanks for the “vote” of confidence. My point here wasn’t to endorse any particular candidates by name, but to question the ease with which Christians have given ourselves permission to casually vote for the lesser-of-two-evils. This approach to politics should trouble our conscience far more than it seems to.… Read more »
You make psalm 2 into a qualification for rulers, but it isn’t anything of the kind. Giving homage to the son of God is required of everyone. It is a qualification for life, not just for governing a nation. The butcher and the baker better kiss the son, lest he be angry. Can a Christian hire the unbeliever to prepare his food, manage his finances, run his corporation? The argument your are making doesn’t end with Christians voting 3rd party, it ends with Christians refusing to partner with unbelievers in anything, especially running a government. If you think that’s required… Read more »
First, I’d like to thank Nathan James for engaging and offering a counter argument. Nathan James wrote: You make psalm 2 into a qualification for rulers, but it isn’t anything of the kind. Giving homage to the son of God is required of everyone. It is a qualification for life, not just for governing a nation. The butcher and the baker better kiss the son, lest he be angry. Can a Christian hire the unbeliever to prepare his food, manage his finances, run his corporation? These are exactly the right questions that must be asked and answered in order to… Read more »
Nathan James and I both seem to acknowledge and agree that, under God’s common grace, even unbelieving butchers and bakers are permitted to carry out their vocations, indefinitely, even under the standing obligation that they must repent and submit to Jesus. You have nearly understood my point of view on this. If you strike the word “indefinitely,” and replace it with “temporarily,” we will be in agreement. All who persist in rejecting Christ, whatever their occupation, stand in jeopardy of being struck down at any moment, by the Christ they refuse to acknowledge. To my knowledge, unbelievers aren’t proclaimed to… Read more »
Nathan James wrote: You have nearly understood my point of view on this. If you strike the word “indefinitely,” and replace it with “temporarily,” we will be in agreement. All who persist in rejecting Christ, whatever their occupation, stand in jeopardy of being struck down at any moment, by the Christ they refuse to acknowledge. All of us are subject to the first death because of the Fall (even Christians), so Nathan James must be referring to some other warning declaration that singles out the entire class of unbelievers for a special kind of “struck down at any moment” temporal… Read more »
All of us are subject to the first death because of the Fall (even Christians), so Nathan James must be referring to some other warning declaration that singles out the entire class of unbelievers for a special kind of “struck down at any moment” temporal sentence from God. I’d be happy to take a look at Scripture references to such a broad standing sentence that applies only to unbelievers. It seems you forget that Christ will be judge of the living and the dead. Some will reach judgment day alive. Judgment is therefore not some other thing separate from real… Read more »
Recall that Daniel abstained from eating the king’s choice foods. Yes, the book of Daniel opens with the Jews honoring the distinction God has made between themselves and the Babylonians. Then the Jews serve the king as God allows. Then the king crosses the line and the Jews defy him. Then more service. Etc. Certainly Christians can give only qualified support to any candidate. The only man we can support without qualification is Christ himself. Even the apostle Peter went badly wrong, as you know. I accept that a Christian could be selected, by Hillary herself, to serve office in… Read more »
Katecho, As you can likely see from my other responses I’m in general sympathy with your view. On top of Psalm 2, which marks out rulers with special culpability for resisting the Gospel. There is also the matter of 1Timothy 3:4-5. Of course this is referring to elders and I do not believe that political offices must be filled by those qualified for eldership, but look at the rationale given. A well managed family is not given as evidence of a man”s regeneration or upright heart. It is evidence of his management skills. You could rewrite 1 Tim 3:5 to… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: You could rewrite 1 Tim 3:5 to “For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he manage a nation?” I think that’s a perfectly reasonable inference. It clearly shows that one’s personal and family life is explicitly relevant to leadership qualification. Our current culture is practically at war with this idea. Christians who aren’t inclined to admit any fixed qualifications in the civic realm will be quick to point out that presidents aren’t pastors, but in order to support this objection they would have to argue that God somehow cares less about a well-managed nation… Read more »
Katecho, you said “Christians who aren’t inclined to admit any fixed qualifications in the civic realm will be quick to point out that presidents aren’t pastors, but in order to support this objection they would have to argue that God somehow cares less about a well-managed nation or city than He does about a well-managed local church. This would be a difficult case to make…” Challenge accepted! The church is infinitely more important that the government of a political body. The church is the bride of Christ. It was for the church, a transpolitical entity, and not for any polis… Read more »
Before I begin, I feel the nostalgic need to reminisce about Psalms 2. Feel free to skip down over the following paragraph if uninterested. The first time I’d heard it, it was not from having read it. It was actually from the Japanese cartoon Hellsing (named for the character from Bram Stoker’s Dracula novel). This is a (hyper violent) action cartoon which follows a secret, overtly protestant organization in Britain which fights against the existence of vampires. In this particular show, part of the hook is that this overtly protestant organization itself employs vampires it uses to fight their own… Read more »
James wrote: If Kamala Harris wins, I would almost certainly vote for Trump, because Kamala condemns as hateful anyone who does not support transgenderism and abortion (and who is not pro-immigration,) and she dated a married man in the 1990s, and as far as I know has not repented of it, which takes away the question of personal morality. No. The question of personal morality died, and was taken away, once Christians were able to rationalize a vote for Trump. Those who would, or have, voted for Trump have stripped themselves of any platform or credibility on which to stand… Read more »
If I understand James correctly, he is saying that the moral equivalence of unrepentant adultery between the two candidates makes adultery a non-decisive factor, assuming one is going to vote at all, not that Harris is ruled out by it in a way that Trump is not. So the decision must be made on factors other than character.
Of course this assumes that one believes that the issue does not create the situation where neither can be voted for, which James apparently does assume.
“So the decision must be made on factors other than [personal] character.”
Lady Dunsworth is correct yet again!
Christians do need to keep in mind that, in God’s Providence, the Apostle Paul got more justice out or Rome, than he did out of Jerusalem.
Not to mention that Jesus and Stephen got NO justice out of Jerusalem, and Rome was no option for them.
As Bill once said: “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.” The Tempest , by William Shakespeare
Full disclosure, adad, that’s not my position. Or at least it wasn’t in 2016 and I’m still working through it for the future. I was just describing what I understood to be James’s point.
And I suppose that Nathan might prefer to be called Nathan, I was just taking katecho’s lead calling him “James.” If that was unfriendly, I apologize.
I’ve been carefully using “James” and “Nathan James” because I assumed they were two different people. It’s a small sample in “James'” case, but their writing style seems very distinct to me.
Yeah, I’m not the same guy that wrote that letter.
Oops, sorry for not paying closer attention.
Jane wrote: If I understand James correctly, he is saying that the moral equivalence of unrepentant adultery between the two candidates makes adultery a non-decisive factor, assuming one is going to vote at all, not that Harris is ruled out by it in a way that Trump is not. So the decision must be made on factors other than character. James seemed to be justifying a vote for Trump, in part because of Harris’s moral disqualifications. But, on further review, Jane may be correct that Harris’s moral disqualifications aren’t disqualifications in James’s mind at all. In fact, on this reading,… Read more »