After banning transgenders, Trump says America worships GOD not GOVERNMENT

[Andy Capp]

Oh no doubt HIllary would have continued the Obama policy of turning the military into a social justice experiment. She would have been inviting trannies into the military.

I don't know what Trump meant when he said that.

He probably meant he would do everything in his power for them since he also said that. But you don't care or one of the other anti-Christian things he already did would be enough to damage your support of that slime ball adulterer.

 

[Andy Capp]

That is interesting. Some books were left out because of inconsistencies, being incomplete or because they were not accurate with other historical texts at the time.

Or so they said. And they said let no one add or remove anything from this amd then they added stuff. So what's their word on it worth?

 

[Kframe]

There was no established monoculture at that point. All that bitching you were doing about kids carols was hilarious BTW since Christmas is a totally and completely manufactured holiday and deliberately so as it relates to Americana.

You are dense you know that? My bitching at the song was because he wrongly insisted that the video was in English, when it clearly is not.

 

[ripskater]

He probably meant he would do everything in his power for them since he also said that. But you don't care or one of the other anti-Christian things he already did would be enough to damage your support of that slime ball adulterer.

Trump can allow the transgenders to still have rights. But the military is not a good place for them to be. That was the right decision.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

ironic that you value "freedom" yet choose to kneel to a tyrannical god.

It's only fitting that America becomes openly theocratic, like our two best friends Saudi Arabia and Israel.

 

[Satanical Eve]

I say take away the dick pills being given to serving members. That cost a shit ton of money

 

[hillelslovak87]

No dude. God loves you.

God wants you to love and fear him. This is the essence of sado masochism, and is a character trait shared by the most vicious killers and torturers in history...........

That is evil.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I for one welcome our new theocratic state.

The link is to this clip on Instagram.



Wherein he says:

And finally, we believe that family and faith, not government and bureaucracy, are the foundation of our society.

You’ve heard me say on the campaign trail, and I’ll say it again tonight: in America, we don’t worship government, we worship GOD.

Here are some of the responses to the Emperor’s declaration of a theocracy:






I just don’t see any downside to it.

source is dailystormer

even most non-christians know this shit isnt right lol

 

[Jim Bob]

Or so they said. And they said let no one add or remove anything from this amd then they added stuff. So what's their word on it worth?

If God is all powerful, then he will protect His own word.

 

[Jim Bob]

The Bible says a looooooooooooooooooooot of things.

The doctrine of original sin was first put forward by Irenaeus (who was a right cunt, in my opinion) hundreds of years after Jesus' death. None (or very few) of the early Christians had any idea of "original sin."

Here's what people like @ripskater abd @Jim Bob need to understand: people have been ARGUING about how the Bible should be interpreted since the different books were written (and those books were written over thousands of years, by the way).

So it's not as simply as "does the Bible say this?" or "does the Bible say that?" You can use one part of the Bible to support an idea, and another part of the Bible to reject it.

You take an idea like original sin, there have been arguments made for and against it, with BOTH sides using the Bible for support.

What would solve a lot of problems, really, is if people stopped talking about "the Bible" as if was one book. It is 66 books. And there are hundreds of similar books that didn't get included in the Bible for a million different reasons.

For example, the Gospel of John, which so many Christians base their faith on, was written to refute another text, the Gospel of Thomas, which wasn't included in the Bible... guess why? Because the supporters of "John" were in power.

I disagree. The Bible has a basic message that basically all evangelicals agree upon. Man has a sin problem and fall short of what God calls for(the 10 commandments)..He loved us enough to send His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sin. Anyone who repents and puts their trust in Him will have eternal life. Every thing else is minor disagreement in theology.

The Book of Thomas doesn't have any other historical books to support it's message. While the book of John was an eye witness account that also has 3 other books that are eye witness accounts to back it up. Scholars universally agree that the author of the Gospel of Thomas also never met Jesus, thus takes away the validity of its message.

If one believes that God is all powerful....then you have to believe that He will protect His own Word!

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Trump can allow the transgenders to still have rights. But the military is not a good place for them to be. That was the right decision.

I think a lot of people, especially confused leftists, forget that a military needs to be strong physically and mentally. A soldiers job is to impose violence so there can be peace. The harsh reality is that a military needs men who are willing to become violent and kill others when necessary. It is not an environment for the weak. The military needs to be a place where men are conditioned to be tough. It is not a politically correct safe space meant to cater to the feelings and fleeting emotions of the weak and entitled.

 

[luckyshot]

I disagree. The Bible has a basic message that basically all evangelicals agree upon. Man has a sin problem and fall short of what God calls for(the 10 commandments)..He loved us enough to send His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sin. Anyone who repents and puts their trust in Him will have eternal life. Every thing else is minor disagreement in theology.

The Book of Thomas doesn't have any other historical books to support it's message. While the book of John was an eye witness account that also has 3 other books that are eye witness accounts to back it up. Scholars universally agree that the author of the Gospel of Thomas also never met Jesus, thus takes away the validity of its message.

If one believes that God is all powerful....then you have to believe that He will protect His own Word!

What do you disagree with? That the Bible is 66 separate books written over thousands of years? Cuz you're just wrong there.

You realize that the gospel of John was not actually written by John the disciple, right? It is the latest of the four canonical gospels. The earliest it was possibly written was 90 AD, and was probably written closer to 110, maybe as late as 120. As I said, it was certainly written after Thomas because it's structure is a point by point argument against Thomas (why do you think it is the only gospel in which the character of "Doubting Thomas" appears?...)

You say John is backed up by the other three gospels, you mean the synoptic gospels that disagree with John on basically everything-- where Jesus was born, the nature and number of his miracles, what he called himself, the basic content of his preaching, who he preached to, the order of his life, etc. The Jesus of John is unrecognizable from the Jesus of Mark, the only one of the Gospels that might preserve some eyewitness information about Jesus biography.

It should be clear to any half intelligent and objective observer that John is a theological argument about what the figure of Jesus should mean to the emerging faith of Christianity, not an accurate record of the person Jesus of Nazareth.

While we're on the subject of people who never met Jesus, how about that Saul of Tarsus. The man who is responsible the majority of the NT, including almost everything that eventually became Protestant theology, not only never met Jesus, but was in open conflict with James, Peter and the rest of the disciples who actually DID know Jesus.

I don't expect to change your mind, but it always amazes me how evangelicals claim the Bible is the most important thing in their lives, but have so little desire to learn actual scholarly information about it (not prayer study information, actual scholarship) especially now that such information is widely available in easily readable formats.

 

[RetiredWisFighter]

What do you disagree with? That the Bible is 66 separate books written over thousands of years? Cuz you're just wrong there.

You realize that the gospel of John was not actually written by John the disciple, right? It is the latest of the four canonical gospels. The earliest it was possibly written was 90 AD, and was probably written closer to 110, maybe as late as 120. As I said, it was certainly written after Thomas because it's structure is a point by point argument against Thomas (why do you think it is the only gospel in which the character of "Doubting Thomas" appears?...)

You say John is backed up by the other three gospels, you mean the synoptic gospels that disagree with John on basically everything-- where Jesus was born, the nature and number of his miracles, what he called himself, the basic content if his preaching, who he preached to, the order of his life, etc. The Jesus of John is unrecognizable from the Jesus of Mark, the only one of the Gospels that might preserve some eyewitness information about Jesus biography.

While we're on the subject of people who never met Jesus, how about that Saul of Tarsus. The man who is responsible the majority of the NT, including almost everything that eventually became Protestant theology, not only never met Jesus, but was in open conflict with James, Peter and the rest of the disciples who actually DID know Jesus.

I don't expect to change your mind, but it always amazes me how evangelicals claim the Bible is the most important thing in their lives, but have so little desire to learn actual scholarly information about it (not prayer study information, actual scholarship) especially now that such information is widely available in easily readable formats.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Funny how you single out the most generic of generic terms, creator/created, and not the all equal tem. For creator, it could be anything you want to believe it is.

Why would I single out a term that has no relevance in the current distinction?
I singled out creator because the poster I quoted said Jefferson would be raging by reading God. God is also a generic term, with the exception of atheists most religions believe in the concept of a god or gods. Christians, muslims, traditional buddhists, hindus, pagans.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Yes, they framed those words like that for a reason. There is a distinct reason they chose the word creator, instead of God, Lord or deity, in the ideal of secularism. So when someone says Jesus is in our laws, one must point out these lines, and enjoin the person to realize that creator can mean anything from Jesus to allah to your mother, who nobody can deny created you.

Did Trump write Jesus?
Jefferson and the others were probably Deists, so they used the term they preferred, usually Creator or Providence.
Trump as a Christian uses God. Which is the most generic term he could without sounding archaic.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Notice all the points I mentioned are key tenets of ripskater's belief system of what makes a good person. The interpretations of any other sect of Christianity are not relevant here. And nowhere did I insinuate that using guns is un-Christian, in fact I said the opposite. Reagan is a false conservative because he is ANTI-GUN. Possibly the worst thing to ever happen to the 2nd amendment, despite the NRA pandering to conservatives with his image.

I have no knowledge of Ripskater's beliefs, so I can't comment.

 

[RetiredWisFighter]

I think when you capitalize God you're inherently (least in English) referring to the Christian God.

While the same deity as Islam and Judaism, Muslims refer to god as Allah while Jews typically do not even pronounce God's name. Meanwhile the lesser religions have god(s) lowercase

 

[Cuzcatlan]

God changes people over time.

Transreligious

 

[hillelslovak87]

Did Trump write Jesus?
Jefferson and the others were probably Deists, so they used the term they preferred, usually Creator or Providence.
Trump as a Christian uses God. Which is the most generic term he could without sounding archaic.

And? We still know they were passionate secularists, and wrote our constitution as a secular document.

 

[Jim Bob]

What do you disagree with? That the Bible is 66 separate books written over thousands of years? Cuz you're just wrong there.

You realize that the gospel of John was not actually written by John the disciple, right? It is the latest of the four canonical gospels. The earliest it was possibly written was 90 AD, and was probably written closer to 110, maybe as late as 120. As I said, it was certainly written after Thomas because it's structure is a point by point argument against Thomas (why do you think it is the only gospel in which the character of "Doubting Thomas" appears?...)

You say John is backed up by the other three gospels, you mean the synoptic gospels that disagree with John on basically everything-- where Jesus was born, the nature and number of his miracles, what he called himself, the basic content of his preaching, who he preached to, the order of his life, etc. The Jesus of John is unrecognizable from the Jesus of Mark, the only one of the Gospels that might preserve some eyewitness information about Jesus biography.

It should be clear to any half intelligent and objective observer that John is a theological argument about what the figure of Jesus should mean to the emerging faith of Christianity, not an accurate record of the person Jesus of Nazareth.

While we're on the subject of people who never met Jesus, how about that Saul of Tarsus. The man who is responsible the majority of the NT, including almost everything that eventually became Protestant theology, not only never met Jesus, but was in open conflict with James, Peter and the rest of the disciples who actually DID know Jesus.

I don't expect to change your mind, but it always amazes me how evangelicals claim the Bible is the most important thing in their lives, but have so little desire to learn actual scholarly information about it (not prayer study information, actual scholarship) especially now that such information is widely available in easily readable formats.

Luckyshot, you certainly have a right to your opinion. Have a great weekend.