AZ megachurch to host Trump tomorrow (6/23) at the next stop on the Pandemic Hotspot Tour

[ZNP]

Last I checked, that war was still on. Declaring victory is not the same as achieving it.

Faith is the assurance of things not seen.

 

[wing2000]

Trump's messaging strategy for November:

“We’re here today to declare that we will never cave to the left wing and the left-wing intolerance,” he said. He cheered on those “who stand up for America and refuse to kneel to the radical left.”

“They hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans,” he said. “Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."

Most Americans are not left-wing nor radical leftest.
Most Americans don't hate our history. Many do appreciate a complete history however and are willing to acknowledge our country has a long ways to go before we "achieve a more perfect union."
America became great because our founders laid the framework for all people to be treated equally.
Our heritage is articulated in our values expressed in our Constitution - values which this President rejects by his actions and words.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Faith is the assurance of things not seen.

Our leaders give us "assurances" by the sackful. Many of the things not seen are never going to be.

In the words of Jerry Maguire, "Show me the money..."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Trump's messaging strategy for November:

“We’re here today to declare that we will never cave to the left wing and the left-wing intolerance,” he said. He cheered on those “who stand up for America and refuse to kneel to the radical left.”

“They hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans,” he said. “Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."

Most Americans are not left-wing nor radical leftest.
Most Americans don't hate our history. Many do appreciate a complete history however and are willing to acknowledge our country has a long ways to go before we "achieve a more perfect union."
America became great because our founders laid the framework for all people to be treated equally.
Our heritage is articulated in our values expressed in our Constitution - values which this President rejects by his actions and words.

I've said it before:
Donald likes to call himself a "wartime president"; since he lacks the courage to face a foreign enemy, he's declaring war against Americans.

 

[ZNP]

Trump's messaging strategy for November:

“We’re here today to declare that we will never cave to the left wing and the left-wing intolerance,” he said. He cheered on those “who stand up for America and refuse to kneel to the radical left.”

“They hate our history, they hate our values, and they hate everything we prize as Americans,” he said. “Our country didn’t grow great with them. It grew great with you and your thought process and your ideology. The left-wing mob is trying to demolish our heritage, so they can replace it with a new oppressive regime that they alone control."

Most Americans are not left-wing nor radical leftest.
Most Americans don't hate our history. Many do appreciate a complete history however and are willing to acknowledge our country has a long ways to go before we "achieve a more perfect union."
America became great because our founders laid the framework for all people to be treated equally.
Our heritage is articulated in our values expressed in our Constitution - values which this President rejects by his actions and words.

I have plenty of issues with Trump but I think he was referring to people tearing down statues.

 

[miamited]

Reproductive rights? Don't you just love today's deceptive terminology? People really go out of their way to make things sound good.

Hi arc,

You're welcome to attack my verbiage and can even fill in with whatever word you feel is a better descriptor. I notice though, and find it amusing, that you didn't feel any need to correct my complaint against, and descriptors used, to speak of the other person. Can I assume then that you are in agreement with those descriptors?

For your benefit I will rewrite my words to hopefully fit your personal understanding.

...of christian believers are all up in arms about a woman who supports legal abortion...but let some liar, thief and fornicator come knocking at the door and they welcome with open arms.

Better?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[cow451]

I have plenty of issues with Trump but I think he was referring to people tearing down statues.

Well, we need to start a Go Fund Me to replace some of these statues with really great American heroes like Donald Trump and .... Donald Trump .... and Donald Trump. America is going to love them. Everybody is talking about it. Millions of people will donate money. All those Confederate guys were losers anyway.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have plenty of issues with Trump but I think he was referring to people tearing down statues.

Figures -- our country is tearing itself apart, and Donald fights for statues.

 

[miamited]

You just have to get your head around the fact that those on the pro-choice side really truly don't think that they are murdering babies. It's not that they know it's baby murder but don't care or are trying to fool themselves.

Hi speedwell,

I can't speak for others, of course, but I do understand abortion as murder. I also understand that killing someone, no matter how it's done, is generally murder. I also understand that having sexual relations, while married, with another woman, is adultery. I realize also that words coming from someone's lips that do not reflect the reality of the truth, is lying. I also realize that having someone do work, for which the buyer then refuses to pay for, is stealing.

Perhaps you can show me how God quantifies each of those activities that makes abortion the only one that we should stand against.

I'm not absolutely certain, but I don't know that Mrs. Clinton has ever had an abortion. So whether she has sinned against God in murdering a child, is questionable. I do know about the other issues and how the person in question has personally participated in those things. If Mrs. Clinton has never had an abortion, but supports the law that allows them, then the only law that she has broken is the one that Paul writes to us about, she approves of those who do such things. Can you quantify that 'sin' as being worse than the actual fornicating and lying and stealing?

BTW, you may want to clean up your post a bit. The second sentence seems to want to contradict the first. Although, I'm saying this because I'm assuming that you meant to write, "it's not as if they 'don't' know it's murder. But your first sentence says that they don't know that it's murder.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[cow451]

Figures -- our country is tearing itself apart, and Donald fights for statues.

A real American can buy a statue of the best President EVER on Amazon (cow451 has no connection with Amazon other than buying some stuff). If you can't find it (the statue) on Amazon, you don't deserve to have it. You missed Father's Day, but it would be a great gift for birthday or Christmas (if it isn't cancelled by crazy liberals).

 

[Arc F1]

Hi arc,

You're welcome to attack my verbiage and can even fill in with whatever word you feel is a better descriptor. I notice though, and find it amusing, that you didn't feel any need to correct my complaint against, and descriptors used, to speak of the other person. Can I assume then that you are in agreement with those descriptors?

For your benefit I will rewrite my words to hopefully fit your personal understanding.

...of christian believers are all up in arms about a woman who supports legal abortion...but let some liar, thief and fornicator come knocking at the door and they welcome with open arms.

Better?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Attack might be a little stronger than my intent. You are correct though, I skipped right over the rest of what you said. My thoughts on that are pretty much in line with what you said. The church and Christians should call him out on his behavior instead of welcoming him with open arms. It bothers me to have to overlook all those faults to get a few things that I want to see. That's why I have stated many times elections for me always end up being lesser of two evils.

 

[ZNP]

I can't speak for others, of course, but I do understand abortion as murder.

I think we should understand the term "reproductive rights" as the right to have fornication, adultery, and sex sanctioned by marriage contract without the responsibility of raising a child that is produced by that act or even of bringing the child to term. It is the right in this country to do things that the Bible labels as sinful and fleshly without accountability.

Therefore it is a religious issue and the Supreme Court has no authority to legalize it.

 

[cow451]

I think we should understand the term "reproductive rights" as the right to have fornication, adultery, and sex sanctioned by marriage contract without the responsibility of raising a child that is produced by that act.

Therefore it is a religious issue and the Supreme Court has no authority to legalize it.

Your logic would then follow that the government has no authority to legislate it at all.

 

[ZNP]

Your logic would then follow that the government has no authority to legislate it at all.

No my logic is that the US constitution is a contract between the people and the government. That contract says two things: the Federal government has no authority to make laws to either make religious practices legal or illegal and the US constitution also says that anything that is not given to the Federal government to legislate is given to the States. This matter is up to the States.

Your error was in equating the Supreme Court with all government bodies. Reread my post.

 

[miamited]

Attack might be a little stronger than my intent. You are correct though, I skipped right over the rest of what you said. My thoughts on that are pretty much in line with what you said. The church and Christians should call him out on his behavior instead of welcoming him with open arms. It bothers me to have to overlook all those faults to get a few things that I want to see. That's why I have stated many times elections for me always end up being lesser of two evils.

Hi arc,

I too agree that most elections, especially on the national level, often end up as being the choice between the lessor of two evils. I'm just not in agreement with many, that's what we got out of this election. When I weigh the evils of Mrs. Clinton against the evils of Mr. Trump, I come up with Clinton being the better choice. She stood by her husband during a fairly big embarrassment to her on a worldwide stage. I applaud her for upholding her marriage vows under such a situation. Now, that doesn't in any way mean that I approve of what her husband did, but I'm focusing on Mrs. Clinton's actions and not his.

I believe that Mrs. Clinton is far more in touch with the populace, than Mr. Trump. I believe that Mrs. Clinton is most certainly a better choice if I look at whether she is a compulsive liar, or has just made some statements that seem to have not been true. I don't have any evidence that she's ever refused to pay for services rendered. For me, on the whole, I find that Mrs. Clinton has a much stronger and more righteous moral fiber, than Mr. Trump. She has also been a regular attender of worship services, for which we honestly can't find any evidence that Mr. Trump has ever been such. I honestly haven't been able to find any evidence that Donald Trump has ever read the bible. Certainly his knowledge of what's written in the Scriptures seems to be fairly low.

I believe that had these riots broken out under a Clinton administration, that she would have done her best to reach out to the disenfranchised in a way to calm and not conflagrate their cause. I believe that she would have listened to the medical experts in advising her on the best way to handle this health epidemic, and would certainly not have encouraged and supported people to not wear masks. I strongly doubt that we would have the poor international relations that we have now. We would certainly not be the laughing stock of our allies.

Donald Trump, in his 'bull in a china shop' manner has literally helped to tear the very fabric of our nation and our international relations to shreds...in my understanding. Despite his three years of trad fights, we're not particularly better off on trade today than we were 5 years ago. Because of his really huge and massive tax cuts, our national coffers are pouring red ink. It takes a fairly large amount of money to run a nation as big as ours in a way that we have strong infrastructure and opportunities. He has literally given that all away, and now a crisis has hit and he's just printing money that is going straight to our deficit. He has really, in my estimation, done very poorly at keeping any of his platform promises.

No one has even talked about an infrastructure bill. We still have the same ACA that we had when he was promising to give us a better plan on day one. He hasn't even pretended to be working at paying down our national debt that he claimed he'd have gone in 8 years. Federal abortion laws are still the same as they always were and there are only a few states that have tried to make any kind of substantive change, that they could have made without Donald Trump being the president. States have always held the authority to write their laws on abortion as their people see fit. The problem is that, according to most polls, most people are not for 'no abortion'. Nearly everyone in the country is agreeable to allowing it under some conditions. Unfortunately, when you couple those people with the one's that want fairly unfettered abortion access, the 'no abortion' people lose.

I just can't agree, looking at the state of our nation today, that Donald Trump was ever the best choice.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[ZNP]

Hi arc,

I too agree that most elections, especially on the national level, often end up as being the choice between the lessor of two evils. I'm just not in agreement with many, that's what we got out of this election. When I weigh the evils of Mrs. Clinton against the evils of Mr. Trump, I come up with Clinton being the better choice. She stood by her husband during a fairly big embarrassment to her on a worldwide stage. I applaud her for upholding her marriage vows under such a situation. Now, that doesn't in any way mean that I approve of what her husband did, but I'm focusing on Mrs. Clinton's actions and not his.

Hindsight is 20/20

At the time of the election in November 2016 what evidence was that that would have clearly proved this?

I get the lesser of two evils until you feel someone is clearly disqualified. What is next, we elect the guy who killed 1 person because the other candidate killed 2?

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

I can't speak for others, of course, but I do understand abortion as murder. I also understand that killing someone, no matter how it's done, is generally murder. I also understand that having sexual relations, while married, with another woman, is adultery. I realize also that words coming from someone's lips that do not reflect the reality of the truth, is lying. I also realize that having someone do work, for which the buyer then refuses to pay for, is stealing.

Perhaps you can show me how God quantifies each of those activities that makes abortion the only one that we should stand against.

I'm not absolutely certain, but I don't know that Mrs. Clinton has ever had an abortion. So whether she has sinned against God in murdering a child, is questionable. I do know about the other issues and how the person in question has personally participated in those things. If Mrs. Clinton has never had an abortion, but supports the law that allows them, then the only law that she has broken is the one that Paul writes to us about, she approves of those who do such things. Can you quantify that 'sin' as being worse than the actual fornicating and lying and stealing?

BTW, you may want to clean up your post a bit. The second sentence seems to want to contradict the first. Although, I'm saying this because I'm assuming that you meant to write, "it's not as if they 'don't' know it's murder. But your first sentence says that they don't know that it's murder.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Let's see if I understand your take on my post. What I meant was,
1. Prochoicers don't believe that abortion (always*) murders babies.
2. The (oft-heard prolifer accusation) that they do believe that abortion murders babies but have abortions anyway is thus unfounded.

*I understand that statement #1 is an oversimplification, but it is also true that not all prochoicers are in favor of abortion as such.

There is a reason why the destruction of a viable fetus (generally third trimester) is illegal in 42 states, laws which the courts have ruled to be consistent with Roe v. Wade and which don't draw all that much opposition from the prochoice side. But at the same time, prochoicers still want "abortion on demand," which means they want it to be a medical rather than a legal matter.

The bottom line s that you are never going to convince the majority of voters that a woman who has popped a morning-after pill has just "murdered a baby" because most voter don't believe that what has happened.

 

[cow451]

No my logic is that the US constitution is a contract between the people and the government. That contract says two things: the Federal government has no authority to make laws to either make religious practices legal or illegal and the US constitution also says that anything that is not given to the Federal government to legislate is given to the States. This matter is up to the States.

Your error was in equating the Supreme Court with all government bodies. Reread my post.

What business do the states have in restricting or prohibiting reproductive rights, (along with adulktery, etc.) inserting itself into the patient-doctor privilege? If it is part of religious practice, the state has no interest, then.

 

[Arc F1]

Hi arc,

I too agree that most elections, especially on the national level, often end up as being the choice between the lessor of two evils. I'm just not in agreement with many, that's what we got out of this election. When I weigh the evils of Mrs. Clinton against the evils of Mr. Trump, I come up with Clinton being the better choice. She stood by her husband during a fairly big embarrassment to her on a worldwide stage. I applaud her for upholding her marriage vows under such a situation. Now, that doesn't in any way mean that I approve of what her husband did, but I'm focusing on Mrs. Clinton's actions and not his.

I believe that Mrs. Clinton is far more in touch with the populace, than Mr. Trump. I believe that Mrs. Clinton is most certainly a better choice if I look at whether she is a compulsive liar, or has just made some statements that seem to have not been true. I don't have any evidence that she's ever refused to pay for services rendered. For me, on the whole, I find that Mrs. Clinton has a much stronger and more righteous moral fiber, than Mr. Trump. She has also been a regular attender of worship services, for which we honestly can't find any evidence that Mr. Trump has ever been such. I honestly haven't been able to find any evidence that Donald Trump has ever read the bible. Certainly his knowledge of what's written in the Scriptures seems to be fairly low.

I believe that had these riots broken out under a Clinton administration, that she would have done her best to reach out to the disenfranchised in a way to calm and not conflagrate their cause. I believe that she would have listened to the medical experts in advising her on the best way to handle this health epidemic, and would certainly not have encouraged and supported people to not wear masks. I strongly doubt that we would have the poor international relations that we have now. We would certainly not be the laughing stock of our allies.

Donald Trump, in his 'bull in a china shop' manner has literally helped to tear the very fabric of our nation and our international relations to shreds...in my understanding. Despite his three years of trad fights, we're not particularly better off on trade today than we were 5 years ago. Because of his really huge and massive tax cuts, our national coffers are pouring red ink. It takes a fairly large amount of money to run a nation as big as ours in a way that we have strong infrastructure and opportunities. He has literally given that all away, and now a crisis has hit and he's just printing money that is going straight to our deficit. He has really, in my estimation, done very poorly at keeping any of his platform promises.

No one has even talked about an infrastructure bill. We still have the same ACA that we had when he was promising to give us a better plan on day one. He hasn't even pretended to be working at paying down our national debt that he claimed he'd have gone in 8 years. Federal abortion laws are still the same as they always were and there are only a few states that have tried to make any kind of substantive change, that they could have made without Donald Trump being the president. States have always held the authority to write their laws on abortion as their people see fit. The problem is that, according to most polls, most people are not for 'no abortion'. Nearly everyone in the country is agreeable to allowing it under some conditions. Unfortunately, when you couple those people with the one's that want fairly unfettered abortion access, the 'no abortion' people lose.

I just can't agree, looking at the state of our nation today, that Donald Trump was ever the best choice.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

How soon we forget that the Clintons had a bungalow at the epstein ranch. I knew about the Lolita express years ago. That's a hard obstacle to overcome. That and she goes completely against Christian beliefs. Trump on the other hand throws us a few crumbs.

 

[miamited]

Hi ZNP,

You responded:

I think we should understand the term "reproductive rights" as the right to have fornication, adultery, and sex sanctioned by marriage contract without the responsibility of raising a child that is produced by that act or even of bringing the child to term. It is the right in this country to do things that the Bible labels as sinful and fleshly without accountability.

Personally, I'm not in agreement with your defining of terms.

I think we should understand the term "reproductive rights" as the right to have fornication, adultery, and sex sanctioned by marriage contract without the responsibility of raising a child that is produced by that act or even of bringing the child to term. It is the right in this country to do things that the Bible labels as sinful and fleshly without accountability.

Therefore it is a religious issue and the Supreme Court has no authority to legalize it.

Hi ZNP,

Well, for the record, I disagree with your defining of terms. We have a number of 'rights' in this country to 'do things that the bible labels as sinful and fleshly without accountability'. Many states support legalized gambling. Some states support legalized prostitution. There are hardly any states that regularly practice God's command for dealing with murderers. None as far as I know for stealing.

Listen, God established the nation of Israel to be governed by His laws and commandments, and that didn't go well. Do we really even think to imagine that some man is going to do better. I'm afraid that for those who are looking to establish some godly nation on the earth, they're hoping for an impossibility. Paul tells us that things on the earth and the ways of man is going to get worse and not better. The Revelation of Jesus Christ tells us that all the nations will rise up against the Lord when he returns.

What God asks of His children is that they live apart from all of the ways of the world, not to change the ways of the world. There is not a single example in the new covenant writings that a single believer spend any time attacking governments. We are to be concerned with people. Individuals. We are commanded to speak the truth in love and not hate or animosity.

It is only a religious issue to the religious. For everyone else in the world, it's just a legal issue for which any government may make a law regarding. But let me repeat, there is no commandment that we are to be about changing the laws of any nation, but about changing the desires of a human heart. God asks us to concern ourselves with other individuals, not nations. I think Paul is quite clear that some nation that honors God's leadership is beyond our abilities, and will, quite frankly, become even harder and harder as the wickedness of man flourishes.

God bless,
In Christ, ted