Manafort fesses up.

[Zymologist]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when I see some of the fruit of the spirit in his life. Being a Christian doesn't mean I have to accept the claims of everyone else who says they're a Christian, especially a politician who thinks he can manipulate my vote. If we are cynics and believe that we should suspect that most politicians are dishonest, then it is wise to be cynical about Trump's claims of finding Jesus.

I, for one, am generally pretty cynical about any politician's claims to Christianity.

[oxmixmudd]

Could you please translate this?

And you wonder why I have doubts about AI

That would be a combo of the spell checker and speach recognition functions on my phone doing their best and failing miserably.

Basically just an apology for calling Sparko MM.


Jim

[Sparko]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when I see some of the fruit of the spirit in his life. Being a Christian doesn't mean I have to accept the claims of everyone else who says they're a Christian, especially a politician who thinks he can manipulate my vote. If we are cynics and believe that we should suspect that most politicians are dishonest, then it is wise to be cynical about Trump's claims of finding Jesus.

I mean about claiming he is acting promiscuously. There has not been even a hint of any affairs or improprieties in many years or since he has been in office. All of that stuff seems to be several years in the past.

[guacamole]

I mean about claiming he is acting promiscuously. There has not been even a hint of any affairs or improprieties in many years or since he has been in office. All of that stuff seems to be several years in the past.

I didn't claim he is acting promiscuously (though I don't know how we'd know, in the moment). I believed that Clinton's lack of sexual integrity disqualified him from the presidency and that Hillary's accommodation of it disqualified her from office. I believe that Trump's sexual immorality, were it in the past or not--and it is not so far in the past for me to be comfortable, disqualifies him from the office.

[Cerebrum123]

DIf I do that? Sorry about that. I do see you two the same at all, though I was Hasting the both of you at the same time

Yes you dif.

[Sparko]

I didn't claim he is acting promiscuously (though I don't know how we'd know, in the moment). I believed that Clinton's lack of sexual integrity disqualified him from the presidency and that Hillary's accommodation of it disqualified her from office. I believe that Trump's sexual immorality, were it in the past or not--and it is not so far in the past for me to be comfortable, disqualifies him from the office.

So even if he did become a Christian and repented (or is not a Christian and changed) you will not forgive him of his past sins? Will you only vote for a completely clean and sinless president?

[guacamole]

So even if he did become a Christian and repented (or is not a Christian and changed) you will not forgive him of his past sins? Will you only vote for a completely clean and sinless president?

Forgiveness and fitness for office are two different things. There is no such thing as a completely clean and sinless president, but faithlessness in the comparatively small things can presage faithlessness in the big things. If he was self-serving enough to violate his oath to his wife (uh, repeatedly), why should I expect him to be a paragon of altruism in respect to his country.

That speaks to the idea of a clean and sinless president. I don't expect 100% ethical purity from any person. It is our nature to sin. However, even in that, there are sins that are disqualifying to wider service unless considerable spiritual change has happened in a person's life--I'm talking a dramatic, Damascus road type change in a person's life. I don't see that in Trump's life. Could he be a Christian? Sure. Does that mean he's done dealing with all of his sexual issues? Not if my understanding of salvation is correct.

[Sparko]

Forgiveness and fitness for office are two different things. There is no such thing as a completely clean and sinless president, but faithlessness in the comparatively small things can presage faithlessness in the big things. If he was self-serving enough to violate his oath to his wife (uh, repeatedly), why should I expect him to be a paragon of altruism in respect to his country.

That speaks to the idea of a clean and sinless president. I don't expect 100% ethical purity from any person. It is our nature to sin. However, even in that, there are sins that are disqualifying to wider service unless considerable spiritual change has happened in a person's life--I'm talking a dramatic, Damascus road type change in a person's life. I don't see that in Trump's life. Could he be a Christian? Sure. Does that mean he's done dealing with all of his sexual issues? Not if my understanding of salvation is correct.

King David wasn't exactly pure in that department either. Not that I am comparing Trump to King David. Just the fact that you claim sexual faithfulness is such an important factor. Pretty much all of the main characters in the bible were faithless in the sexual area.

[One Bad Pig]

King David wasn't exactly pure in that department either. Not that I am comparing Trump to King David. Just the fact that you claim sexual faithfulness is such an important factor.

Yep.

Pretty much all of the main characters in the bible were faithless in the sexual area.

Eh, you're way overstating things here.

[Sparko]

Yep.

Eh, you're way overstating things here.

probably. but if you include multiple wives...

[rogue06]

King David wasn't exactly pure in that department either. Not that I am comparing Trump to King David.

AFAIK Trump never had anyone killed so he could get his wife.

[Cow Poke]

AFAIK Trump never had anyone killed so he could get his wife.

Careful, when you say something really stupid like that* and the Dems hear about it, it just might go viral!



*the stupid idea that Trump would have somebody killed, not that you mentioned it.

[Zymologist]

AFAIK Trump never had anyone killed so he could get his wife.

...that we know of. Who knows what Mueller will find?

[Cow Poke]

...that we know of. Who knows what Mueller will find?

It was probably a Russian he had killed!

[oxmixmudd]

No, you pointed out a self-serving Wikipedia quote from Bill Clinton claiming a contradiction but deceptively cut the quote to avoid revealing the fact that it was coming from Bill Clinton (what other reason is there for you to start the quote in the middle of a sentence instead of quoting the entire thing?). To counter this, I gave you sources quoting the women themselves along with other sources who were told about the incident at the time it happened, and you literally laughed it off and launched into a pathetic ad hominem fallacy.

My 'laughter' was aimed at your absurd and paranoid notion that there was some sort of attempt to 'hide' that Clinton was the one noting the facts contained in the quote.

As to the claim of ad hominem - can you point me to a post where you agreed Trump acted badly instead of defending him and/or ripping into whoever pointed out the absurdity or immoral nature of what Trump did?

Speaking of reading more carefully, you were responding to Sparko, not me.

Yep, that was an ironic mistake. I have to laugh at myself over that as well.

Jim