Do you defend Trump's infidelity?

[Zymologist]

Fascinating that the only one who is willing to defend Trump's infidelity is the only liberal to have voted so far.

I took it as a tongue-in-cheek vote.

[element771]

Fascinating that the only one who is willing to defend Trump's infidelity is the only liberal to have voted so far.

I voted no.

[rogue06]

I took it as a tongue-in-cheek vote.

Next thing we know you'll be assuming gender.

[whag]

Fascinating that the only one who is willing to defend Trump's infidelity is the only liberal to have voted so far.

Fascinating that you consider such a small sampling fascinating.

[whag]

Laws Concerning Israel's Kings

Deut 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (KJV)

God never intended for men to have multiple wives. He did put up with them doing it though, but nothing good ever came of it. David's own children turned against him and each other. David's reign was plagued with trouble because of his many wives. And Solomon was even worse.

So I guess the lesson is that while Trump can still be president, his infidelity is not approved, nor will any good come from it.

If David was steeped in sin, how could he be so praised by God as an exemplar of faith? You question Trump’s salvation (I’m assuming for infidelity reasons), yet David flaunted his kingly priveledge to have sex with many wives with nary a peep of condemnation from God. That’s weird, right? I always found that part bizarre, like almost one of the most glaring bible difficulties.

[whag]

I took it as a tongue-in-cheek vote.

It was. I figured I’d play the contrarian.

[Mountain Man]

If David was steeped in sin, how could he be so praised by God as an exemplar of faith? You question Trump’s salvation (I’m assuming for infidelity reasons), yet David flaunted his kingly priveledge to have sex with many wives with nary a peep of condemnation from God. That’s weird, right? I always found that part bizarre, like almost one of the most glaring bible difficulties.

As Paul Copan once wrote, "The Biblical authors often don’t comment on such action because (at least in part) they assume that they don’t need to. In other words, is doesn’t mean ought; the way biblical characters happen to act isn’t necessarily an endorsement of their behavior." There's also the fact that the negative consequences of having multiple wives and concubines is well-documented throughout scripture. There is not a single one recorded that had a happy ending, suggesting that God's blessing is not on such unions.

[whag]

As Paul Copan once wrote, "The Biblical authors often don’t comment on such action because (at least in part) they assume that they don’t need to.

That doesn’t seem likely. Many of David’s bad actions receive not only commentary but quick condemnation. Solomon’s name is attributed to a book about his relationship with what is obviously one of many females, not a monogamous marriage to one wife. It’s not as easy an answer as Paul suggests, precisely because there are so many instances in which it seems God looked the other way or specifically approved of it.

2 Samuel

12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

[Mountain Man]

That doesn’t seem likely. Many of David’s bad actions receive not only commentary but quick condemnation. Solomon’s name is attributed to a book about his relationship with what is obviously one of many females, not a monogamous marriage to one wife. It’s not as easy an answer as Paul suggests, precisely because there are so many instances in which it seems God looked the other way or specifically approved of it.

2 Samuel

12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Really? 2 Samuel 12? A chapter where David is being harshly condemned for his sins? God wasn't approving David's polygamy, he was condemning him for his greed!

[One Bad Pig]

Really? 2 Samuel 12? A chapter where David is being harshly condemned for his sins? God wasn't approving David's polygamy, he was condemning him for his greed!

This is pretty typical for whag's interpretation of scripture. He likes to play the contrarian. Make of it what you will.

[whag]

Really? 2 Samuel 12? A chapter where David is being harshly condemned for his sins? God wasn't approving David's polygamy, he was condemning him for his greed!

The rebuke was for the Bathsheba/Uriah incident, not for having a plurality of wives:


7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

Moreover, it’d be utterly brazen of David to continue to have sex with multiple different women for decades after he’d specifically been condemned in this verse for polygamy. The context is adultery and murder.

[whag]

This is pretty typical for whag's interpretation of scripture. He likes to play the contrarian. Make of it what you will.

There’s be no midrash without someone playing the contrarian.

[Cow Poke]

I wonder if any liberals will tell us that it's only sex and therefore nobody's business

That seems to have a familiar ring to it.....

[Cow Poke]

On second thought, I'd like to expand this thread's scope: please, comment on Trump's character in general. Do you condemn anything other than his infidelity?

I think he's repugnant. But it wouldn't be the first time God used an ass to accomplish His plans.

[Sparko]

I think he's repugnant. But it wouldn't be the first time God used and ass to accomplish His plans.

"an"