Trump's Spiritual Advisor

Well, he did make it sounds like there is a problem with seeking answers from the Bible

I simply asked where would mankind go for answers if not to the Word of the Lord???

It's a fair question in light of his remark... nobody seems to know the answer

then ask if what you have to say is really going to be a blessing or if it is going to be casting holier than thou rocks at someone and ultimately cast yourself as someone that is vastly superior to everyone on this board.

Posting passages from God's Word IS in fact a blessing, even for you who obvious see yourself so low that you have to attack the posting of scripture as though that's some sort of problem.

You should hang out with Jesus more so He can life you up and help you with the terribly low self esteem thing you have going there.

The way you post passages and your use of them out of context and as a weapon is not a blessing to anyone, but I am sure you are aware of that already and do this because it gives you some sort of sick satisfaction. 

Useful article here for those who are interested. Not for you Rockrz as you know everything already  . Lucky for us you are only an online pest, some of us have unfortunately faced the actual thing in real life.

https://marcalanschelske.com/bible-bash-clobber/

Plus 1

https://marcalanschelske.com/use-the-bible-wrong/

The way you post passages and your use of them out of context

You you are going to explain to us WHY each passage posted does not mean what it clearly says?

Where's your commentary to explain what these passages REALLY mean?

If you are so sure these are "out of context" as you put it, don't you have a responsibility to explain these passages away since you claim to have revelation that these are being used "out of context"???

I'd be interested in seeing some of your commentary on specific passages I posted in the thread about God's Promises, and in the thread about God's Warnings.

*Trump has a Faith Advisor*
*Christians judge Trump and his advisor*

*if Trump didn't have a Faith Advisor*
*Christians would judge Trump for not having one*

Sadly typical.

*Trump has a Faith Advisor*
*Christians judge Trump and his advisor*

*if Trump didn't have a Faith Advisor*
*Christians would judge Trump for not having one*

Sadly typical.

That's true, and the Repubs do the same thing to the Dems so go figure.

The big issue is that according to the New Testament, ladies are not Bisops, Pastrors, Teachers, Church Leaders so he ought to at least get a preacher that meets the qualifications for ministry and the Lord stated in His Word:


Qualifications for Ministry

1 Timothy 3:1-13
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Bishop - Strongs G1985
a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively): KJV -- bishop, overseer.
 
Deacons - Strongs G1249
from an obsolete diako (to run on errands; compare 1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon): KJV -- deacon, minister, servant.

Titus 1:6-9
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1 Timothy 2:12,13
I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve

ThomasEversole wrote:*Trump has a Faith Advisor*
*Christians judge Trump and his advisor*

*if Trump didn't have a Faith Advisor*
*Christians would judge Trump for not having one*

Sadly typical.

Good point. Why in the US do you think it's still so important that the President or candidate has to evidence some pretense of having Christian faith whether they really do or not? Would people not vote for them if they were the best candidate for the position and were just honest and said they don't follow Christianity either in theory or practice? 

You are right, whoever he picks it will upset someone.

Would people not vote for them if they were the best candidate for the position and were just honest and said they don't follow Christianity

That's why most Christians did not vote for Romney, cause he's a mormon which is not Christian... it's a cult

Trump at least does some good things that are in favor of Christianity and Israel unlike obama who did things that favored islam.

BaleMaster wrote:He can do much, much better.

Perhaps, but he could also do much worse.
No one is perfect, and no Christian is a perfect Christian either.

Rockrz wrote:

Would people not vote for them if they were the best candidate for the position and were just honest and said they don't follow Christianity

That's why most Christians did not vote for Romney, cause he's a mormon which is not Christian... it's a cult

Trump at least does some good things that are in favor of Christianity and Israel unlike obama who did things that favored islam.

Technically all religions are cults(and all spiritual *cults* are cultures or *religions*). Or all started out as cults. The same with all *cult-ures(and subcult-ures).* cult's are just smaller cultures and cultures are just bigger cults.
Christianity started out as a small, misunderstood *cult* too. Never forget that. The beginning of institutional christianity started out as a Roman imperial religion after constantine converted and imposed it, and proceeded to demonize all the pre-existing smaller Christian subsects as cults. Then ruled as the only christianity for 1700 years(aside from a few smaller gnostic Christian sects it persecuted) till the protestant subsect was born and persecuted as a cult(it in turn persecuted Catholicism and gnostic christianity as cults) then Both spent the last few centuries persecuted each other and other types of christianity and other religions and nonreligions as cults. They became more tolerant in recent decades(particularly after the debacle of the satanic panic)...but clearly some still continue this persecutory of *cults* not of their sects. To be fair most religions and cultures have equal guilt in this behaviour as well, as do most nonreligions. And most sociopolitical ideologues. The circle of madness continues.....

Rockrz wrote:

Would people not vote for them if they were the best candidate for the position and were just honest and said they don't follow Christianity

That's why most Christians did not vote for Romney, cause he's a mormon which is not Christian... it's a cult

Trump at least does some good things that are in favor of Christianity and Israel unlike obama who did things that favored islam.

Technically all religions are cults(and all spiritual *cults* are cultures or *religions*). Or all started out as cults. The same with all *cult-ures(and subcult-ures).* cult's are just smaller cultures and cultures are just bigger cults.
Christianity started out as a small, misunderstood *cult* too. Never forget that. The beginning of institutional christianity started out as a Roman imperial religion after constantine converted and imposed it, and proceeded to demonize all the pre-existing smaller Christian subsects as cults. Then ruled as the only christianity for 1700 years(aside from a few smaller gnostic Christian sects it persecuted) till the protestant subsect was born and persecuted as a cult(it in turn persecuted Catholicism and gnostic christianity as cults) then Both spent the last few centuries persecuted each other and other types of christianity and other religions and nonreligions as cults. They became more tolerant in recent decades(particularly after the debacle of the satanic panic)...but clearly some still continue this persecutory of *cults* not of their sects. To be fair most religions and cultures have equal guilt in this behaviour as well, as do most nonreligions. And most sociopolitical ideologues. The circle of madness continues.....

On a related note. Recently she came under fire from MSM and nonchristian and even some Christians for speaking against the satanic temple and satanism, preaching from the pulpit allegedly cursing satanists and asking Jesus to cause abortions of satanists. As an exchristian myself I found and find myself coming to her defense as she clearly, contextually was not speaking literally but metaphorically and clearly not asking Jehovah or Jesus to abort satanists fetuses, but only to abort satanist curses, which is fair enough. I dont neccesarily agree with her 100%, but feel she deserves to have a nonchristian come to her defense and contextualize what she said or says.

[quote="Kerrick"]She's terrible...[/quote

No ones perfect. No Christian is perfect either.
Doesnt make them *terrible* either

Pro-Zak wrote:

alldatndensum wrote:She is definitely part of some sort of charismatic church.  She reminds me of some of the preaching I heard from some of the Assembly of God pastors when I went to one many years ago.

She's more than that, she's part of the word/faith prosperity gospel, the "got a need, plant a seed" drivel. Having said that, I agree that many times it's hard to distinguish the two from each other, lot of cross over there.

Drivel or not. It is no less valid an interpretation of Christian scriptures than yours or any other subsects/types of christianity. And doesn't make her a bad person nor an insincere Christian or person

So many sectarian ELITIST Christians here pissing on those they consider to be baby Christians or newbie Christians or Christians of other subsects. Did Jesus practice such or preach such elitist subsect arrogance, ego, and persecutory meanness and want his followers to be so spiteful to each other(or to others)?
Just food for thought, something to think about.

Contrarian Deist wrote:

BaleMaster wrote:He can do much, much better.

Perhaps, but he could also do much worse.
No one is perfect, and no Christian is a perfect Christian either.

Sorry, that's a seriously lame critique on your part.  And since you're an "exchristian" why does it bother you so much what we Christ-followers do and think? You're coming awfully close to trolling here, and for a newbie, that reeks of disingenuousness.

BaleMaster wrote:

Contrarian Deist wrote:

BaleMaster wrote:He can do much, much better.

Perhaps, but he could also do much worse.
No one is perfect, and no Christian is a perfect Christian either.

Sorry, that's a seriously lame critique on your part.  And since you're an "exchristian" why does it bother you so much what we Christ-followers do and think? You're coming awfully close to trolling here, and for a newbie, that reeks of disingenuousness.

And you have kinda just proven my point with your non-argument attacking my character and sincerity, saying I'm just trolling and being disingenuous. I'm not trying to troll, I'm bored and looking to engage in reasoned conversations and civil debate is all with other people. And I disengenuous? No I'm being completely sincere and honest.
Agree or disagree with my points/arguments and give your reasons for your agreements or disagreements.
I care that everyone live up to their own standards or the standards of their own religions, philosophies, ideologies, myself included.
My point was that Trumps spiritual advisor may not be perfect, but no one is, and that she deserves some challenge but not to have her character assassinated.or be falsely accused...especially from those of her own shares faith.
Why is this an unreasonable position to take? How is it *trolling* or disengenuous?
I'd make the same defenses of you if you were facing similar attacks unfairly.
Its ironic, isnt it, that a nonchristian would go out of their way to defend a Christian when even some fellow Christians wouldn't? Who's being disengenuous here? I'm being completely sincere and honest.

Why should I care what Christian's think, as an exchristian? Well, my reasons are probably similar to yours or other Christians or anyone else's when they also do the same, proclaim to or act in such a way as to show they care how or what others of other beliefs or viewpoints think or more importantly HOW they think and how they act. You cant tell me that you as a Christian never do that in regards nonchristian of various sorts.

BaleMaster wrote:

Contrarian Deist wrote:

BaleMaster wrote:He can do much, much better.

Perhaps, but he could also do much worse.
No one is perfect, and no Christian is a perfect Christian either.

Sorry, that's a seriously lame critique on your part.  And since you're an "exchristian" why does it bother you so much what we Christ-followers do and think? You're coming awfully close to trolling here, and for a newbie, that reeks of disingenuousness.

I think it shows maturity, honesty, open mindedness, civility, reason, genuineness, not disengenuous on my part.
Engaging in civil debate is not *trolling*. This overuse or misuse of this term *troll* by people is, in fact, a perfect example of Orwellian newspeak and it is a means to silence people, shut down debate, avoid making actual arguments, and to character defame others.
That...that's *disengenuousness*

Hey Contrarian Deist.

You come here and immediately start swinging fists at longtime members in threads that hadn't been touched for some time.  That's trolling in my books.  I'm giving you a seven-day temporary ban to cool off.  I saw your other posts in the music sections and you obviously know something about Christian metal.  If/when you come back, my advice is to spend more time in those sections, build a rapport with us, and only then begin to carefully and respectfully engage in political discussions.

Kerrick wrote:Hey Contrarian Deist.

You come here and immediately start swinging fists at longtime members in threads that hadn't been touched for some time.  That's trolling in my books.  I'm giving you a seven-day temporary ban to cool off.  I saw your other posts in the music sections and you obviously know something about Christian metal.  If/when you come back, my advice is to spend more time in those sections, build a rapport with us, and only then begin to carefully and respectfully engage in political discussions.

I mean no direct, personal offenses.
But they were already swinging fists at each other. I merely added my two cents and my thoughts and a couple intellectual challenges.
The only post I could be said to *swinging fists* in here is my third Las post there, which I posted not as a direct response to anyone in particular.
I think I've been exceedingly polite, civil, and reasoned in my approach and in debate. Meanwhile you have a couple people here who started *swinging fists* at me merely for expressing disagreements or making challenging arguments. By resorting not with reasoned, civil counter arguments of their own but only personal attacks, ad hominem, character assassination and falsely accusing me and assigning to me motives that just aren't there.
I never *swung* any *fists* at anyone personally or directly. But a couple people here did at me personally and directly...yourself included, but they were already *swinging fists* at each other personally and directly, so hey...when in Rome right?

Also I didn't need to *cool off*, lol! Cause I was never personally angry or *heated up* to begin with.
I think you and those couple others are projecting.
But hey, cool, whatever. No sweat off my back. Do whatever you want.

Kerrick wrote:Hey Contrarian Deist.

You come here and immediately start swinging fists at longtime members in threads that hadn't been touched for some time.  That's trolling in my books.  I'm giving you a seven-day temporary ban to cool off.  I saw your other posts in the music sections and you obviously know something about Christian metal.  If/when you come back, my advice is to spend more time in those sections, build a rapport with us, and only then begin to carefully and respectfully engage in political discussions.

One last thing. You never even gave me any warnings or anything. You just suspended me, no warnings, no conversation, not even allowing me an opportunity to respond to you and your accusations or the banning. Why? Is this how you treat your guests? What would Yeshua do? Would he treat people that way?

Kerrick wrote:Hey Contrarian Deist.

You come here and immediately start swinging fists at longtime members in threads that hadn't been touched for some time.  That's trolling in my books.  I'm giving you a seven-day temporary ban to cool off.  I saw your other posts in the music sections and you obviously know something about Christian metal.  If/when you come back, my advice is to spend more time in those sections, build a rapport with us, and only then begin to carefully and respectfully engage in political discussions.

And you know what's really funny, bizarre. I got banned for defending one of your fellow Christians from character assassination by other Christians here. Trumps spiritual advisor. They weren't just rationally critiquing her, they were attacking her character. As leftists have also done, in a different way. I was defending her sincerity as a Christian. And I get personally attacked, character assassination for it and then banned for it? Lol! I mean, wow!

Basically. I think it is unfair to assassinate me character by assigning to me nefarious motives, when the only reason I joined is because I was looking for a forum to engage in some friendly conversation and civil intellectual debate. Not to *troll*...whatever that means, it used to mean something...it used to mean engaging in non-argument and substitution in the place of argument with nothing but repeated blitz attack ad hominem and individual slandering and logical fallacies. Nowadays it seems to only mean..I don't like your opinions...therefore you're a *troll* and must be silenced. It's nothing more than a false accusation slander, a form of intellectual lazy and intellectual dishonesty nonargument a form of authoritarianism and censorship...usually hypocritically done. It used to have meaning, now it's just a form of censorship of others and others views that someone does t like.
My intentions here are nothing but sincere, everything I've stated had come from a sincere mind, not disingenuousness or a desire to *troll* or offend offer offenses sake. But you have just assigned me such motives without justification.

Spam, spam, spam, spam, lovely wonderful spam!