Donald Trump: "the very embodiment of what the Bible calls a fool"

….where were you a year ago, Christianity Today? Did it just occur to you that Trump is a sleazebag? Again, spare me. Journalists at CT should, of all people, have been the first to let the world know about who Donald J. Drumpf really is. BEFORE the primary season.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Prov 18:2

A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back. Prov 29:11

When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest. Prov 29:9

Doing wickedness is like a sport to a fool, and so is wisdom to a man of understanding. Prov 10:23

A fool’s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul. Prov 18:7

Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools. Ecc 7:9

The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. Prov 15:2

The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin. Prov 10:8

…whoever utters slander is a fool. Prov 10:18

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly. Prov 15:14

In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly. Prov 13:16

Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. Prov 26:11

Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest, so honor is not fitting for a fool. Prov 26:1

Most of those proverbs apply to me….

Could not a different, but equally heinous, litany of loathsome qualities be compiled about Hillary Clinton? What are the chances CT will publish that list?

I find all of these articles from Christians sites lambasting Trump as being very naive. The vast majority of Washington is no different, and Hillary is right in line. The idea that someone puts on a good face and another has his secrets exposed, just further highlights that naive nature of this. Washington is and always will be corrupt, filled with very bad sinners. The founding fathers in many cases weren’t much better than Trump. We as Christians continue to look at the US as a “protected” country and as one that is led by Christians, like we are trying to lead in a new theocracy. When it crumbles we go bananas. Is the fact that Clinton lied about his affairs any different than the affairs that Kennedy had 40 years earlier or the ones that Thomas Jefferson had 200 years before that?

If you’re referring to the allegations that Jefferson had sexual relationships with his slaves, those have never been proven. Many Presidential historians believe that it was Jefferson’s brother who had the relationships with the slaves, not Jefferson. Many other historians believe Jefferson did have sexual relationships with slaves. DNA suggests a connection to the Jefferson family, but cannot prove the father was Jefferson. Bottom Line: No one can know.

Donn R. Arms wrote: Could not a different, but equally heinous, litany of loathsome qualities be compiled about Hillary Clinton?

I think what you are implying by your line of questioning is that if Candidate “A” can be disqualified for his personal failings, then Candidate “B” can be as well. But so what? No one has ever thought otherwise.

The point of CT publishing this list for Trump is not to make this argument, but to point out to Christians that Trump is the antithesis of that which Christians should support in a candidate.

Such a rebuttal is needed as long as leading evangelicals (Falwell Jr, Franklin Graham, Reed, etc) keep extolling that Trump is a Christian and is a good man of character.

…is just proving that he belongs in the same bin as MacDonald, Grudem, Christianity Today, and James Dobson; as people who simply chose to look past the obvious because the Drumpf movement was YUGE. In this train wreck, Drumpf is performing Christian conservatives a huge service by showing us how distracted we get with “bright shiny objects” like Manhattan strip club developers.

It’s time for us to start saying “folks, if you can’t read the papers and figure out the obvious, please step down from your public ministry. We are personally stepping away from supporting you until you do.”

What is troubling (and somewhat humorous) to me is the number of my Christian friends on Facebook who are “so distraught” over the political process. They are almost in full meltdown mode now.

Perhaps I’m too apathetic to care. But, why expend so much emotional capital over this election? Aren’t we to consider ourselves resident aliens and strangers in this world? I see no hand wringing in the NT over who was in power, whether emperor or prefect.

[Mark_Smith]

Most of those proverbs apply to me….

Really, Mark? You would say most people would identify you with these traits? That is your reputation?

[Donn R Arms]

Could not a different, but equally heinous, litany of loathsome qualities be compiled about Hillary Clinton? What are the chances CT will publish that list?

The Democratic nominee has pursued unaccountable power through secrecy—most evidently in the form of an email server designed to shield her communications while in public service, but also in lavishly compensated speeches, whose transcripts she refuses to release, to some of the most powerful representatives of the world system. She exemplifies the path to power preferred by the global technocratic elite—rooted in a rigorous control of one’s image and calculated disregard for norms that restrain less powerful actors. Such concentration of power, which is meant to shield the powerful from the vulnerability of accountability, actually creates far greater vulnerabilities, putting both the leader and the community in greater danger.

But because several of the Democratic candidate’s policy positions are so manifestly incompatible with Christian reverence for the lives of the most vulnerable, and because her party is so demonstrably hostile to expressions of traditional Christian faith, there is plenty of critique and criticism of the Democratic candidate from Christians, including evangelical Christians.

But not all evangelical Christians—in fact, alas, most evangelical Christians, judging by the polls—have shown the same critical judgment when it comes to the Republican nominee. True, when given a choice, primary voters who claimed evangelical faith largely chose other candidates. But since his nomination, Donald Trump has been able to count on “the evangelicals” (in his words) for a great deal of support.

Nothing new here, except the glare of new details. So, what’s the alternative? Bash Trump, and indignantly declare that you could never vote for someone like him? Feel good about your principled stance, which insures that Clinton is elected? So then we have another sleaze bag whose political principles are in conflict with the US Constitution, who will support legislation and appoint judges that will further erode religious freedom and further erode public morality. That’s not wise. Please look at the bigger picture. At this point, Trump is the only candidate who could possibly keep Clinton out of office. It’s either Trump or Clinton. Both are highly undesirable, but there are no other choices, realistically. Which of these two will likely retard the downward trend toward less religious and economic freedom and legal immorality, and which will accelerate it? It’s time to hold your nose and vote pragmatically.