News

Suppose God had coffee with Donald Trump… how would that go?

3 Comments
The Jesus Seminar and their pre-suppositions
Donald Trump and his evangelical Christian supporters

My friend William shared this post by well-known social conservative Matt Barber. Barber imagines a conversation between Trump and God.

Excerpt:

The following statements attributed to Mr. Trump are not fabricated. The man truly uttered them. Those attributed to God are likewise genuine.

[…]The discussion begins.

Trump: “I am a really smart guy. I’m intelligent. Some people would say I’m very, very, very intelligent. I know what sells, and I know what people want.”

God: “[I] oppose the proud, but give grace to the humble. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (James 4:6 and Luke 14:11).

Trump: “Nothing wrong with ego. Show me someone without an ego, and I’ll show you a loser. Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest – and you all know it!”

God: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches. When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil” (Jeremiah 9:23, Proverbs 11:2, James 4:16).

Trump: “If you don’t tell people about your success, they probably won’t know about it.”

“Part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich. I’m really rich. Cash is king, and that’s one of the beauties of the casino business. And while I can’t honestly say I need an 80-foot living room, I do get a kick out of having one.”

God: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).

Trump: “Fighting for the last penny is a very good philosophy to have. I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day. Who the f–k knows? I mean, really, who knows how much the Japs will pay for Manhattan property these days?”

God: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24).

The conversation moves on to Mr. Trump’s boasting of his many adulterous affairs.

God: “Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?” (Proverbs 5:20)

Trump: “Nice t-ts, no brains. A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10. Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world, I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, ‘Can you believe what I am getting?’”

God: “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7).

Trump: “[Women:] You have to treat ’em like s—t.”

“When a man leaves a woman, especially when it was perceived that he has left for a piece of a– – a good one! – there are 50 percent of the population who will love the woman who was left.”

“If I get my name in the paper, if people pay attention, that’s what matters. You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of a–.”

“It’s all in the hunt, and once you get it, it loses some of its energy. I think competitive, successful men feel that way about women. Don’t you agree? Really, don’t you agree?”

God: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for [I] will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4).

I have to skip a bit… can’t quote the whole thing!

Trump holds up Bible he "received from his mother" to evangelicals
Trump holds up Bible he “received from his mother” to evangelicals

More:

Trump: “For many years I’ve said that if someone screws you, screw them back. When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can.”

God: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 5:44, Matthew 6:15).

Trump: “I don’t like to have to ask for forgiveness. Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness, if I am not making mistakes?”

God: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

You know, when I think of the people I really admire in this world, I think of people like Jay Wesley Richards, Michael Licona, J. Warner Wallace, Bruce Gordon, Paul Copan, Scott Klusendorf, Tim McGrew, etc. If you asked me who takes the Bible seriously, I’d point to them. I can see how a thorough understanding of the Bible’s teaching has affected their character and behavior. I cannot imagine why anyone who claims to be a Bible-believer would support a man like Trump. It’s not that I insist on someone who agrees with me on every point of theology. My favorite podcast is the Ben Shapiro show, and he’s an Orthodox Jew! It’s that I expect that people who claim to take the Bible seriously to show it in their character and their behavior. Don’t hold up the Bible and claim to respect it when there isn’t anything in your life to show it.

Related posts

 

Commentary

Is Donald Trump right to order U.S. troops to commit war crimes?

5 Comments
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

David French, who served in the military with distinction, takes a look at Trump’s statements for National Review.

He writes:

Donald Trump fundamentally misunderstands the American military. He sees it as an instrument of savage brutality, restrained only by political correctness. There is no honor. There is no law. If only the military were free to torture, murder, and blaspheme, then America would win its wars. By believing that American soldiers would follow those orders — or would want to follow those orders — he slanders the character of the American military.

For months, he has promised that he would order the military to commit war crimes, torturing militants and targeting their families for execution. He was just as emphatic in promising that those orders would be followed.

He was wrong. There is no scenario under which the military would ever follow directives so offensive to its honor and so blatantly illegal. No man I served with in Iraq would comply with an order to intentionally kill an innocent woman or child, and no officer with a shred of decency or honor would give such an order. The Pentagon has many flaws, but truly bad soldiers are few and far between, and the military is institutionally hard-wired to resist exactly this kind of corruption. Trump would instantly sever the relationship between America’s armed forces and their commander-in-chief just by asking them to do such things.

As Lieutenant General James Mattis put it in a 2005 memorandum to the United States Marine Corps, “Marines fight only enemy combatants.” It should go without saying that the same principle applies to soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Our men and women in uniform do not fight innocent civilians and they do not assault prisoners in their custody. Both the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice bind American soldiers to the laws of war, which prohibit such actions.

Donald Trump promised that American soldiers — at the very least — violate Articles 93, 118, and 128 of the UCMJ. Article 93 prohibits “cruelty and maltreatment,” while Articles 118 and 128 prohibit murder and assault.

Here he is explaining his views:

I’m not sure what Donald Trump is thinking by making these sorts of claims about what he can and cannot make the military do. I know people in the military, and they are the opposite of “hired muscle”. Many of them hold to Judeo-Christian values, and they go into the military in order to serve their country honorably. They see their service as a matter of honor and devotion to the country that has allowed them to live free and be prosperous. Character is at the center of their service, in short. They are trained to think not about themselves, but to think of others first. Acts of self-sacrificial heroism are celebrated in the military. Acts of cruelty and barbarism are shamed.

All you have to do to see this is to read the citations for people who win the Medal of Honor… it shows you what the U.S. Military holds in the highest regard.

Look:

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration that may be awarded by the United States government. It is presented by the President of the United States, in the name of Congress, and is conferred only upon members of the United States Armed Forces who distinguish themselves through conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty:

  • While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States;

  • While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or

  • While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

That’s what serving in the military is about. It’s not about obeying orders, it’s about moral virtues – courage, bravery, selflessness – tested under the most extreme conditions. Military people are who are trained to do the moral thing when their lives are endangered.

If our men and women in uniform were ordered to besmirch their honor in order to serve, they would almost universally disobey orders. The intentional targeting of civilians is something that we do not do. The other side (radical Islamists) targets civilians, but we do not. If Trump were elected, and ordered our fighting men and women to commit war crimes, you could expect a mass exodus of our most patriotic Americans from the armed forces.

News

New study: open relationships in the gay community

2 Comments
Young people seem to like gay marriage more than they like individual liberties
Young people seem to like gay marriage more than they like individual liberties

Story from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Excerpt:

A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.

[…]”I think it’s quite natural for men to want to continue to have an active and varied sex life,” said 50-year-old technology consultant Dean Allemang from Oakland, who just ended a 13-year-open relationship and has begun another with a new boyfriend.

“I don’t own my lover, and I don’t own his body,” he said. “I think it’s weird to ask someone you love to give up that part of their life. I would never do it.”

Hoff, who just received a $3.5 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to continue the study for five more years, initially started her research based on findings that HIV infection is on the rise among male couples.

“So much of the HIV prevention effort is aimed at a different set – men in dance clubs or bathhouses having anonymous sex,” she said. “HIV prevention might want to expand its message to address relationships; we have to look at risk in a greater context.”

In her study of gay couples, 47 percent reported open relationships. Forty-five percent were monogamous, and the remaining 8 percent disagreed about what they were.

Another researcher quoted in the story explains how same-sex marriage is compatible with an “open relationship”, and that this interpretation of marriage would be a redefinition of traditional marriage.

Related to that, there is this radio interview with a gay activist.

Excerpt:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

To me, making a relationship “open” puts an emphasis on each person feeling good, rather than each person committing to love the other self-sacrificially. I wonder if young people understand that. What would be interesting, I think, would be to ask all the young people – especially young women – how they would feel if their partner’s idea of marriage involved having an open relationship. How do they feel about non-exclusivity incorporated into the new definition of the word “marriage”.

It seems to me that it’s one thing to say that marriage is a man and a woman committing to love each other through to old age, regardless of changing feelings and unmet desires. A relationship based on the natural definition of marriage is focused on commitment, and not fulfillment of desires. And that works well for children, who need stability, even if the desires of adults are not met. If marriage is about people abandoning exclusivity and permanence in order to get what they need to be happy “in the moment”, then neither person will be able to depend on the other when they are old, ugly and sickly.

Here’s a video that explains the basics of why people like me support natural marriage:

The word marriage means, one man, one woman, for life. And both parents sacrifice to raise the children they create. And no frivolous divorce, either. And if you ask me, it should also mean no sex before marriage, formal courtship, approval of both sets of parents, and the wife stays home when the children under five.