"There's no doubt that Biden's administration is a greater evil and there are compelling reasons Christians give to vote for Trump that I fully respect. For example, believing Trump’s administration will: 1. Provide greater protection for the unborn as opposed to Biden’s administration that wants the murder of babies to be unrestricted and forced on every State. 2. Provide an end to the Transgender evil that’s destroying so many lives as opposed to Biden who fully supports and embraces the LGBTQ+ godless agenda. 3. Provide greater protection for our nation’s citizens by securing the border as opposed to Biden’s open border policy that is an existential threat. 4. Provide greater religious freedom to advance the Gospel as opposed to Biden’s support of anti-Christian policies like the Equality Act. 5. Provide a greater opportunity to advance Christian values in our culture as opposed to Biden’s evil agenda that has no resemblance of a biblical worldview. But Christians have an obligation not to blindly follow any administration’s positions that oppose a biblical worldview... including Trump's. Furthermore, we have an obligation to speak with clarity when those positions are grossly immoral. Even with many good reasons to vote for Trump, we should be deeply grieved to vote for a man who openly supports it to be lawful for a baby to be murdered until “late term” and is supportive of “gay marriage.” 20 years ago, if a Democrat candidate held those same moral positions, those things would’ve been given as the top reasons to not vote for that candidate. We should not be less vocal now when we would've been then. It seems to me that any Christian who votes for Trump should have mixed feelings at best. There are things that will cause you to be glad to vote for him and other things that will cause you to grieve that he was your only viable option in the end. But if a Christian were to vote for Trump with only feelings of joy while shouting, “Trump, Trump, Trump,” that would not be a respectable place to be. My intention in emphasizing the facts about the current godless positions of the Republican Party is not to shame anyone who votes for Trump. Romans 14 guides my thinking in these matters and it should keep us from binding the conscience of others. Someone not voting for Trump isn't necessarily more principled than someone voting for him. Many Christians will vote for Trump with heavy hearts over the current godless positions of the Republican Party. They are principled people, and their convictions to vote for Trump are driven by a commitment to Christ, not a political party. I pray that will be true for all Christians who pull the lever for Trump."
Tom Buck
One more example of a reasonable argument for Christians to vote for Trump. I'm not saying I agree with every point of any of these, just that they are interesting.
7 comments:
"There's no doubt that Biden's administration is a greater evil and there are compelling reasons Christians give to vote for Trump that I fully respect
There is all kinds of doubt for all kind of reasonable Christians in the US to think that, of course, the sexual deviant, hedonist, amoral convicted felon is of course a greater evil than Biden who is, at worst, getting old and not as able to do the job. That isn't sinful, that's just humanity.
I get that you all think (tell me if I'm mistaken) that disagreeing with your personal religious opinions about abortion and immigration means, to you and your religious opinions, Biden's policy are problematic from the view of your personal religious opinions. But that's different than Biden being an "evil" of any kind, much less a "greater evil."
Or is it your human opinion that disagreeing with your all's collective religious opinions is the same as being evil?
Do you see the problem?
I don't expect you do, but please, let us know.
Provide greater protection for the unborn as opposed to Biden’s administration that wants the murder of babies to be unrestricted and forced on every State.
Does it bother you, from an ethical or moral point of view, that "Tom Buck" would make this declaration with NO data to support it?
Do you not see that disagreeing with your personal human religious opinions is NOT the same as saying that Biden "wants the murder of babies to be unrestricted and forced on every state..."?
!! Good Lord! Do you see how over-the-top presumptuous and just stupidly false that is?
Biden - who I do not even know personally, of course - absolutely does NOT want "the murder of babies to be unrestricted." Biden is, of course, opposed to the murder of babies. What Biden supports - along with the majority of the US, Christians and otherwise - is for women to have the right to make their own medical decisions as it relates to their unborn fetuses. YOU ALL are the ones who are presuming that "fetus=baby," which remains an unproven conclusion. I can tell you scientifically and with NO FACTUAL dispute that the six week old clump of fetal tissue is NOT in any objective sense, "a baby." It is factually, fetal tissue that will one day be born as a human baby if it makes it that long, but that does not make that clump of tissues a "baby."
Further, the religious opinion that some have that fetuses are the same as living borned baby humans is a religious opinion not shared by all. Here in Kentucky, some Jewish women have just sued the state for trying to force the religious view of SOME people that a fetus=a born human on other people of good faith who do not share that religious view. Again, the view that a fetus is the same as a born human baby is a religious opinion, not a scientific fact.
So, again, Biden does not support the unrestricted killing of babies. NOR does he factually want the "murder of babies to be unrestricted" - as a point of fact - nor does he want that to be "forced on every state."
Instead, he wants states to recognize that not all humans share the same religious philosophies of some sects of religious people and wants the religious and human liberties of individuals NOT to be forced into compliance with some few religious people's opinions.
Do you understand the distinction? If not, why not?
If you do, then why do you think the religious views of some people should be forced upon others who do not share that religious view?
And to my first point: Does it not trouble you that "Tom Buck" is just factually lying on this claim... that disagreeing with "Tom Buck" and "Craig" is not the same as "wanting the murder of babies to be unrestricted..."?
"Does it bother you, from an ethical or moral point of view, that "Tom Buck" would make this declaration with NO data to support it?"
No, I was under the impression that everyone in the US was free to hold their own opinions and share them publicly without government interference.
"Do you not see that disagreeing with your personal human religious opinions is NOT the same as saying that Biden "wants the murder of babies to be unrestricted and forced on every state..."?"
Given the reality that multiple states have passed legislation that legalizes abortion up until the day of birth, and the reality that there are academic voices arguing for post birth abortion, no. Given the reality that the DFL position is that abortion should not be limited or regulated by the state at all, no. I doubt Biden actually knows what the DFL position is, but since Biden is the DFL candidate, he is advocating the DFL position.
"!! Good Lord! Do you see how over-the-top presumptuous and just stupidly false that is?"
1. You r lack of proof undercuts your claim.
2. No, as states have enacted laws that say virtually this.
"Biden - who I do not even know personally, of course - absolutely does NOT want "the murder of babies to be unrestricted." Biden is, of course, opposed to the murder of babies. What Biden supports - along with the majority of the US, Christians and otherwise - is for women to have the right to make their own medical decisions as it relates to their unborn fetuses. YOU ALL are the ones who are presuming that "fetus=baby," which remains an unproven conclusion. I can tell you scientifically and with NO FACTUAL dispute that the six week old clump of fetal tissue is NOT in any objective sense, "a baby." It is factually, fetal tissue that will one day be born as a human baby if it makes it that long, but that does not make that clump of tissues a "baby.""
Given your total lack of scientific credentials, and the plethora of embryology textbooks that would disagree with you, this seems like a loss.
The "religious argument" canard, despite multiple arguments that have been made (and ignored/not refuted by Dan), that argue strictly from science.
"So, again, Biden does not support the unrestricted killing of babies. NOR does he factually want the "murder of babies to be unrestricted" - as a point of fact - nor does he want that to be "forced on every state.""
Dan speaks for Biden, since Biden couldn't be this articulate if he tried maybe that's a good thing. I could be wrong, but a national law that legalizes abortion for any reason and at any time, would literally be forced on states that have already passed laws about abortion.
"Do you understand the distinction? If not, why not?"
I understand that you've made up a distinction without actually proving your hunches.
"If you do, then why do you think the religious views of some people should be forced upon others who do not share that religious view?"
I don't. I think that we should look to science, (biology, embryology) to establish limits. I think that this is a state issue, not a federal issue.
"And to my first point: Does it not trouble you that "Tom Buck" is just factually lying on this claim... that disagreeing with "Tom Buck" and "Craig" is not the same as "wanting the murder of babies to be unrestricted..."?"
Look, Dan repeats the same "question" twice in the same comment. What a dick move.
"There is all kinds of doubt for all kind of reasonable Christians in the US to think that, of course, the sexual deviant, hedonist, amoral convicted felon is of course a greater evil than Biden who is, at worst, getting old and not as able to do the job. That isn't sinful, that's just humanity."
Really, Biden has been telling the same lies for decades and his inability to tell the Truth is because he's "getting old". If you have to misrepresent what's being said in order to create a straw man, your argument must really be bad.
"I get that you all think (tell me if I'm mistaken) that disagreeing with your personal religious opinions about abortion and immigration means, to you and your religious opinions, Biden's policy are problematic from the view of your personal religious opinions. But that's different than Biden being an "evil" of any kind, much less a "greater evil.""
No, you are wrong.
"Or is it your human opinion that disagreeing with your all's collective religious opinions is the same as being evil?"
No.
"Do you see the problem?"
Yes. The problem is that you clearly have problems with anyone expressing a viewpoint other than your unproven hunches, and feel compelled to attack anyone who does so. Without regard to what is actually being said, or how much you have to distort others views.
Dan, there's only one of you. Or does the "us" mean that you have MPD or are possessed?
I've presented all of the following before, but I enjoy exposing Dan's lies so I'm going to do it again.
Being a pervert, Dan perverts the pro-life life position. First of all, this position is all based on proven facts. The Christian and Jewish position is aligned with proven facts and Scripture provides pro-life facts of it's own. Nothing Dan, nor any other infanticidal cretin says rebuts the facts behind the pro-life position.
The actual position begins with the simple biological fact that the human fetus=a person. From the moment of conception, that is true. Given that a baby is a person, it makes no difference if one refers to even a human zygote as a baby. Women who intend to carry their unborn to term commonly refer to the unborn as "baby" regardless of what stage of development the unborn happens to be at the time. For the infanticidal to pretend they've scored points on this is testament to their dishonesty.
From there, it must be understood that one who exists does exist without having had their parents engage in the procreative process. Even if the child comes to be by artificial methods, the child exists because of the basic fact that its father's sperm fertilized its mother's ovum. But in general, likely better than 99% of all human beings exist because their parents engaged in the very act designed for the purpose of bringing about another person. Intention to conceive has nothing to do with that fact. Contraceptive methods have nothing to do with that fact. Engaging in the act is to invite a new person into existence. It's just that simple. Should conception takes place, only a person results and it results immediately upon fertilization.
Because science confirms its unique status as a new person by virtue of its unique DNA, it is absurdly dishonest to in any way suggest the life of ANY person not be granted the same respect to which the infanticidal presume they are entitled.
In Scripture, this fact that the conceived is a person endowed by its Creator with the same unalienable right to life wasted on the infanticidal, we have enough evidence the conceived is a person. First, God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. There was only one way provided for the purpose...the aforementioned act of procreation. Then, in Genesis 1:27 we read:
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
In the first line, "man" can easily be and often is interpreted as "mankind" or "humankind". In other words, "people". God created people in His own Image. Obviously, the conceived are created creatures just like the cretinous infanticidal progressives are. The right to life referenced by Jefferson in the Declaration held the right as self-evident, and despite arguments it was referring to adults or adult males, the fact is that it mentions each person being endowed by their Creator. Only those who've been created have a creator and the conceived are clearly and unmistakably created.
Finally (I think), I've presented in the past testimony from pro-life obstetricians who specialize in difficult pregnancies, as well as from reformed abortionists, who assert there is never any reason to abort a child at any stage of development, as it's never the child which is causing the difficulty said to threaten the life of the pregnant woman. I've never heard or seen any cases in which it can be confirmed that the woman could only be saved by murdering the child in any number of ways...that delivering the child first and then addressing her condition wasn't possibly...with proof to back it up. The same pro-life professionals I mentioned also say that prep for abortion takes longer than just delivering the child. Thus, there's no justification for taking the child's life. No justification, terminating human life is murder.
There's no "different opinion" when facts are provided and proven as fact. There's only a rejection of truth by the infanticidal. That would by Dan and Biden and the Democrat party and all the feminazis who believe themselves possessed of the authority to dictate when a person is not a person...as if an actual nazi or Gazan out to destroy all Jews, or Klansmen out to subjugate black people. There's not a shred of difference between those vile people and the pro-"choice" crowd.
Art,
I agree that the biggest flaw in Dan's argument is the fact that the declaration enshrines the right to life as the first of the three. That without life, the others do not exist. That there is no warrant to remove the right to life from anyone. Science tells us unequivocally that the unborn are living, unique, human beings at one stage of human development. That Dan and his ilk want to deprive living human beings of the one right that all the others are founded upon seems almost barbaric.
The fact that he's reduced to recycling the '70s era "clump of cells" line when science tells us that the "clump of cells" is infinitely more complex and full of information than was ever suspected when the slogan was written, makes one wonder if Dan is committed to science in general, or only the science that feeds his narratives.
Post a Comment