Reasons not to support Trump and the Republican Party

[Evan Jellicoe]

Very well, but I already answered that what you were complaining about--him allegedly being disrespectful towards the nation of Mexico--didn't bother me. In fact, it isn't particularly interesting to me.

But the outrageous claims of many notable politicians and commentators deserve a challenge, not only because they are vicious allegations but because these people made them up out of thin air.

I hope this reply finally sets things straight for you.

Yes, it helps. Although this may surprise you, I don't mind an admission that somebody else simply doesn't care about something that I think is important. There is nothing dishonest or illogical about that, even if I feel differently.

I would be interested in your sharing some specific anti-Trump claims that you believe are bogus or unsupported by sound reasoning, if you would be willing to do so.

 

[Sketcher]

To paraphrase a bit -- Where did Jesus or the Apostles command that the individual give their charitable responsibilities to the Church? Where is there any sort of command in the New Testament for a church-run welfare system?

Christs commands in the Bible were for individual Christians to give to the poor, not the Church. Yet we have no issue with acting as if the Church giving to the poor is in line with Christ's commands

They were for individuals to give. The church is a body made up of individual Christians. The instances of the churches giving in Acts and the Letters were indeed of believers voluntarily making individual contributions of their resources and time, many times into a common pot. Christian charities as we know them today are an outgrowth of this ethic. This is fine, I not only don't have a problem with it, I actively participate in it, and encourage others to do so.

so why is the government, which is also not mentioned, not also allowable?

I didn't say government welfare is not allowable, but rather it's not commanded. If it's not commanded, there is no moral duty to support it in and of itself. This doesn't mean that people can't support it, but it would be wrong to say that they must support it.

And, sure, the government taxes your pay; but we, as Americans, decide where that money goes -- maybe not as directly as you would like, but probably more directly than you get to decide how your Church spends the money they collect.

When I donate to my church, I can tell them exactly how much I want to go to the deacon's fund, and exactly how much I want to go to the general fund, and exactly how much I want to go to a special overseas missions fund. I do not get that flexibility with my taxes.

Last, this "dependence" thing is based on false understanding -- particularly since Welfare reform under Pres. Clinton. You realize there is a maximum amount of lifetime benefits that people can receive of 5 years (60 months) under the federal welfare program? I trust you also realize that there are various training programs to help those on welfare, and even before people need to go on welfare, to get trained for jobs and become self-sufficient?

Those were improvements, but there's still dependence on that and on state aid.

Last, I don't recall Christ every telling us we should "judge" the poor, and not donate or help them if they aren't living the lives they should. In fact, it almost seems to be the opposite, with Christ telling us not to judge others and his ministry to the "sinners" (harlots and publicans) of his time (as viewed by the religious establishment).

I don't judge "the poor" as a class. I believe they should be given opportunity, but not enablement for addictions or poor habits. What helps them the most are jobs. Second best is training.

 

[Sketcher]

1. The fact that the person you happened to vote for may not be the one who raises your taxes is really beside the point. That this will happen is an unavoidable consequence of being part of a larger collective - each individual is not always to going to get their way. And more to the point, would you stop donating to your church just because they did not do exactly what you wanted with your gift?

Some Christians do exactly that. Some will call that praiseworthy if the spending is deemed to be wasteful - particularly if it's making people rich.

2. About disincentivizing people: surely you must understand that a big chunk of your taxes - the things that come off your paycheck - go to honourable causes like welfare, public hospitals etc. You seem to overlook this - you have already given through those taxes.

3. Your point about "abandoning charity to the government" is addressed by what I wrote in my earliep post - please actually address the case I present there.

I believe I did address it. Jesus told individuals to give out of love. That means voluntarily parting with money and resources at your own disposal. Taxes do not meet this requirement. We pay them, but it is not "giving" as Jesus commanded and as the New Testament churches practiced. Therefore, government welfare does not meet the standards of Biblical giving, and therefore Christians are not obligated to support it. They can if they believe it's a good idea, but it is not wrong to criticize them and work to change or eliminate them if they disagree with them.

 

[Sketcher]

Do you want the least possible abortions to occur? If the answer to that is yes, then promoting abstinence as your main approach to stopping unwanted pregnancies is logically inconsistent. Abstinence might sound like a great solution but in reality it simply doesn't work, people's biological urges are stronger than their willpower in a vast number of cases. If you want to cut abortion then you should be promoting sex education and funding free contraceptive provision without moral constraints like parental consent. This might seem like it goes against your other beliefs, but if radically reducing abortion is your main goal then that's how you achieve it.

Provide those two things and then you can promote abstinence on top of that to your hearts content. Try and skip that step however and you're going to continue to have a massive unwanted pregnancy rate, and as history proves it doesn't matter how many laws you put in place, people will find ways to abort those pregnancies regardless, and in often horrible and wildly unsafe ways.

I never said that children and teens shouldn't be educated on birth control. I have consistently said that sex education isn't truly comprehensive unless it promotes abstinence as the best choice, and provides reasons for that.

 

[Sketcher]

The bible also doesn't say not to take a wiz on your neighbour's shoes, so what? What a meaningless distinction.

There is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want someone peeing on my shoes, so I'm not going to pee on theirs.

Leviticus 23:22
"'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.'"

Deuteronomy 24:19
"When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings."

Leviticus 19:9 - 10
“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."

OK, these are laws written to Jewish farmers. Where in the New Testament are they repeated to the general church? Furthermore, if we examine it, God is telling the Jewish farmers to do less work so that people in need can perform work in order to glean what they need to survive. This isn't like our welfare system at all.

Providing for the poor is a very clear biblical mandate and at no time does God specify or forbid any mechanism in which to do so. The bible also clearly says to respect the law, pay your taxes and obey governing authorities. The idea of "the state" is such a modern concept and not applicable to the bronze age when the bible was written, a very different time with forms of government we'd consider alien now.

God commands individual giving out of one's own abundance. For the most part, God does not specify or forbid the mechanisms by which this is done - therefore, there is no Biblical case for judging a believer who disbelieves in a non-Biblical mechanism for doing so. That same mechanism may be fine for another believer to support, but the idea of "support the welfare state or you're in sin" is not what Jesus or the Apostles taught at all, and according to Romans 14:4, sinful.

 

[Albion]

I would be interested in your sharing some specific anti-Trump claims that you believe are bogus or unsupported by sound reasoning, if you would be willing to do so.

Evan, I woke up this morning with the thought that I should not go on rebutting the endless character assassination that goes on online. We all know what social media is like.

Most of the posts I could refer you to come from people who don't even have a story to tell. They haven't so much as picked up some article from an extremist magazine, etc. and are repeating it with embellishments.

Those are just "one-liner" sneers that call him a bunch of the most vile names that can be imagined and point at things that never happened (which of course they know as well as any reader).

So, although you are a member who does not do that sort of thing but rather attempts to deal in facts and explanations, I'll have to "pass" on your invitation at this time rather than keep the issue in the forefront.

 

[rjs330]

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
"Caesar" (civil government) has authority on earth to deal with earthly matters, such as taxation, national defense, the material welfare of citizens, and so on. Government exercises material (including financial) authority over those within its geographical bounds, whether the individual desires it or not.

The Church has authority over the spiritual welfare of those who voluntarily associate with the Church. Once upon a time the Church in Europe exercised authority over all within its geographical boundaries, but not today in America. Freedom of conscience (and the freedom to do privately anything that does not harm another person) is assumed in America today (though that freedom is inconsistently applied).

No where does the Bible teach that we as believers are to ask or advocate the use of force to require anyone to follow ANY command. Whether it be seen as material or spiritual. Thieving, murder etc. Are material things as well as spiritual. Giving is spiritual ad well as material. The word of God does not separate like that.

Christians need to quit using the Bible to justify their desire to use the government to force their beliefs on others. Because it's double minded. if we are going to use scripture like that them it's an all or nothing proposition.

We are required by scripture to obey the law of the land. And we are not forbidden to participate in government. So asking your representative to push laws to have more money set aside for welfare programs is OKAY. BUT don't use the Bible to support your views that it teaches iwe SHOULD do that. Because it doesn't. Anymore than it doesn't teach that we should ask our government to enforce a law against adultery.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Evan. . . I'll have to "pass" on your invitation at this time rather than keep the issue in the forefront.

OK, I respect your reasons. Still, I would like to make a few remarks of my own to address the topic of unfair attacks on Trump.

In line with what I think you are referring to, there are untold numbers of insulting and disparaging remarks that get thrown at him regularly that aren’t even in the realm of proof or disproof. They make me think of kindergarteners calling each other “poo-poo head.” Such insults serve no purpose except to express hate and invite others to share in the hate; I believe that hate directed at anybody is something that Christians should strive to avoid.

On top of those content-free insults, there are also the disparaging remarks that violate Liberals’ own professed standards. I am thinking especially of what is called “body-shaming,” which is strictly off-limits in the Liberal world, except when it is directed at a “bad” person who deserves it. (Irony intended!) So, I frequently see attackers referring to things such as Trump’s hair color, hand size, and weight. Obviously this introduces an element of hypocrisy, which I believe should be avoided regardless of one’s personal like or dislike of somebody.

Now, on to more substantive charges:

I completely reject the idea that Trump is a Nazi. Anger against Trump has grown to such a fever pitch in Liberal circles that many of them now go to great lengths to explain that they realize that calling somebody a “Nazi” is considered “beyond the pale,” but then go on to explain why Trump is an exception who (again) “deserves” to be called a Nazi because he really, truly, actually, objectively, is one. (No, he is not. I don’t wish to go into a long history lesson about what the Nazis actually did. We all know what they did, and it was a lot more than just being really, really, disagreeable. Trump is not even close to being one of them.)

I also reject the charge that Trump is an incompetent idiot who never does anything right. In my view, the charge of “incompetence” generally is another way of saying “He didn’t do it the way I would have done it.” By that standard, many view Harry Truman as an incompetent who bungled the Korean War and fired the one guy who could have handled it properly (General MacArthur). But others view Truman’s strategy as absolutely masterful, with MacArthur being the bungler. Both sides are free to express their opinion, but I just remind myself that most of us, if given the opportunity to run America’s foreign policy, would do no better than Phaeton did when he was allowed to drive his father Apollo’s chariot. So the charge of incompetence should be used very sparingly.

To sum up, nobody does eveything wrong (or right), and debaters should keep in mind the distinction between objective facts and personal opinion, and never state an opinion as though it were an objective fact. And Christians should never (in my opinion, which I believe to be in line with what the Bible says) use empty insults and other expressions of hate to attack somebody they dislike.

I am sure that this still leaves some areas where you and I disagree about Trump’s merits, but I’m betting you’re on board with these particulars, at least.

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

Christians need to quit using the Bible to justify their desire to use the government to force their beliefs on others. Because it's double minded. if we are going to use scripture like that them it's an all or nothing proposition.

We are required by scripture to obey the law of the land. And we are not forbidden to participate in government. So asking your representative to push laws to have more money set aside for welfare programs is OKAY. BUT don't use the Bible to support your views.

My interpretation of American custom and law is that anybody is free to believe absolutely whatever they want to believe (politically) and then vote for the candidates who come closest to those beliefs. Whether I get my own beliefs from the Bible, from my own common sense, or from tea leaves and a Ouija board does not matter. As long as what I believe can be argued to have a secular, non-religious purpose--such as prohibiting stealing or murder--then it doesn't matter where my views come from. I only have to persuade other people that my ideas seem wise to them. Religious views cannot be required, but they cannot be prohibited, either.

 

[Albion]

I am sure that this still leaves some areas where you and I disagree about Trump’s merits, but I’m betting you’re on board with these particulars, at least.

Certainly, although those two (Nazi and idiot) are probably the least of it. Those accusations are almost too-obviously insults for insults-sake. But there are scores of other ones that are much more wicked.

 

[rjs330]

Correct. God permits government to do that, not me personally. And I always caution people to be slow to use the argument that "The Bible never authorized government to distribute charity." It also never explicitly authorized any people to form a constitutional republic. Every form of government recognized in the Bible is a monarchy of some sort. Kings. Emperors. Pharaohs. Even Moses. Yet here we are, with an elected government. And nothing prevents our going back to a Kingdom except for the fact that we don't want to.

Silence does not equal prohibition. Permission does not equal obligation.

That's my point. Don't use the Bible as your authorization to demand that we use the government take from some to give to others. Or to demand that it enforce the ten commandments. The Bible does not support doing either of those things.

 

[Pommer]

That's my point. Don't use the Bible as your authorization to demand that we use the government take from some to give to others. Or to demand that it enforce the ten commandments. The Bible does not support doing either of those things.

I totally agree with not using the Bible for any policy for our secular government!

 

[Foamhead]

But we have already seen some industries switch over-mainly the auto producers switcher over to the hygiene stuff. But if a company is not outfitted for such-you can't commandeer it. God forbid if Trump ordered say P&W to stop working on aircraft engines & instead making gloves, he would have still been attacked by the media.

I don't see the relevance of your response to my post.

 

[Foamhead]

Clearly God wants us to help the poor. But God never told you to go to your neighbor and demand he give to the poor and then tell him how much he had to give.

And if you use the Bible as authorization to do that then we also can use the Bible to demand we enforce the ten commandments.

I just posted numerous verses where you are in fact commanded to do so. Your neighbours are allowed to go on your property and eat your crops without even asking, irrespective of your desire. I thought Christians were supposed to follow what the bible says regardless of secular law.

 

[Foamhead]

There is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want someone peeing on my shoes, so I'm not going to pee on theirs.


OK, these are laws written to Jewish farmers. Where in the New Testament are they repeated to the general church? Furthermore, if we examine it, God is telling the Jewish farmers to do less work so that people in need can perform work in order to glean what they need to survive. This isn't like our welfare system at all.



God commands individual giving out of one's own abundance. For the most part, God does not specify or forbid the mechanisms by which this is done - therefore, there is no Biblical case for judging a believer who disbelieves in a non-Biblical mechanism for doing so. That same mechanism may be fine for another believer to support, but the idea of "support the welfare state or you're in sin" is not what Jesus or the Apostles taught at all, and according to Romans 14:4, sinful.

Oh please. Show me where it says "this only applies to Jewish farmers", of which virtually every person in those days was. When you say "If we examine it" what you seem to mean is "If I try to make this mean something more in line with what I wish instead of what it plainly says, I don't have to change or admit I am wrong".

Romans 14:4 is talking about judging those who don't follow Jewish dietary laws. Have to even read that passage yourself?

 

[KCfromNC]

The Democrats are good in theory, but in practice, they are huge hypocrites. They are anything but Democratic by doing what they can to stop outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders.

I know it might seem strange to GOP supporters given all the gerrymandering and voter suppression coming from their leadership, but what's hypocritical in going with the candidate who got the most votes?

 

[Evan Jellicoe]

I totally agree with not using the Bible for any policy for our secular government!

You have to make a distinction: In our secular government, no law should ever be specifically religious in intent. But I as an individual am perfectly free to support a law because of what I believe the Bible says. That is why I support the Democrats in expanding welfare; I personally believe that a secular society is doing right to take care of its weaker members. A Muslim could make the same argument by referring to what the Qur'an says. But legislators should only consider whether secular reasoning supports a policy.

BTW, the Bible is the foundation for my belief in helping the poor, but my detailed reasons for rejecting Republican arguments for limited government are purely based on logical reasoning. My bedrock secular position can be described as "the greatest good for the largest number" rather than 'the greatest overall good, even if only a few actually reap any benefit." (i.e., a rising tide most emphatically does not lift all boats.)

But that's a different discussion.

 

[rjs330]

I just posted numerous verses where you are in fact commanded to do so. Your neighbours are allowed to go on your property and eat your crops without even asking, irrespective of your desire. I thought Christians were supposed to follow what the bible says regardless of secular law.

Are Christians also not supposed to eat shell fish? How about wear garments if mixed cloth? I suppose we are to eat kosher foods and kill unruly teens as well?

And those verses you posted never gave them the right to go to their neighbors house and force them to give.

Jesus certainly never taught that. Stop using the Bible to demand that a givernment pass laws that conform to certain subjects in the Bible. Because if you do then you have to demand they make laws against adultery and homosexuality. And anything else contained in scripture.

The scriptures are aimed at you as a believer. You should give. You should not commit sinful acts. You have no biblical right or authority to demand that governments pass religious laws.

 

[rjs330]

You have to make a distinction: In our secular government, no law should ever be specifically religious in intent. But I as an individual am perfectly free to support a law because of what I believe the Bible says. That is why I support the Democrats in expanding welfare; I personally believe that a secular society is doing right to take care of its weaker members. A Muslim could make the same argument by referring to what the Qur'an says. But legislators should only consider whether secular reasoning supports a policy.

BTW, the Bible is the foundation for my belief in helping the poor, but my detailed reasons for rejecting Republican arguments for limited government are purely based on logical reasoning. My bedrock secular position can be described as "the greatest good for the largest number" rather than 'the greatest overall good, even if only a few actually reap any benefit." (i.e., a rising tide most emphatically does not lift all boats.)

But that's a different discussion.

I have no problem with your position. Because we live by our beliefs. But it's wrong for us to use that as a basis to demand that others believe as us and use the force of governmental law to do so. And furthermore to use the Bible as a reason chastise those that don't believe that we should not.

If you want the givernment and a society to help the poor, I have no issue with that. I absolutely believe we as a society should help those in need. We can argue and debate as to how that should occur and how that should look, but that is a political stance. But to throw out the "Jesus said we should help the poor, therefore the givernment should take money from people and give it to others" is a violation of scripture. Scripture does not teach that.

Because you are picking and choosing which scriptural teaching you want the government to enforce. And how you want them to do so.

 

[HannahT]

but what's hypocritical in going with the candidate who got the most votes?

If people want to change the way the electoral process works? There are procedures to do that, but it hasn't happened. Claiming something is hypocritical because it hasn't been done makes no sense.