Donald Trump: Criticism & Debate Thread
- Thread starter Caduceus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- public figures zionist
This is the approach for if you want to ensure these sort of based (really these sort of values should just be considered standard and vanilla but in today's inverted culture it would be 'based') values get passed on and actually effect people's hearts and behavior. Notice that in your chain of events it started with women promoting LGBT stuff and that it was prior to the government promoting it. I would have added (((media))) as well in the chain prior to government. The culture changed first and then the laws followed from the cultural change. Government was not legislating morality - in other words it wasn't using the laws to change people morals instincts. Rather the people already had certain moral instincts that were hijacked by media, propaganda, etc and then the laws came after to enshrine these moral instincts
Orthodox: https://christisking.cc/threads/why-voting-is-worth-it.938/page-2#post-49614
Catholic catechism: https://christisking.cc/threads/why-voting-is-worth-it.938/page-10#post-51511
Furthermore, both Music and I have agreed to speak to our Bishops about the topic of "not voting" in greater detail the next time we meet them.
Last edited:
So to go back to the original point, Trump winking at the gays with his rainbow flag isn't helping. You aren't going to stop by them by not enforcing the law against them. @Wutang You can't change their hearts by the Law, sure (that's what the Gospel's for), but you can deter them by enforcing the Law (which is exactly what the Law is for). No different than how you deter murder by enforcing anti-murder laws, or by enforcing anti-rape laws, etc. So the idea that the Law is useless to stop certain behaviors is a myth used by the left to pacify the right. The right is too scared to use political power, so they don't deserve to have it. Until the right wakes up to this basic reality, they will continue to get walked all over by the left.
@Samseau your insistence that it's sinful to not vote must be repented of. You have no warrant from either the Scriptures or from the Fathers in your own tradition to try to bind men's consciences the way you are attempting. Calling something a sin, that the Scriptures do not call a sin, is adding to the Word of God. Unlike not voting, adding to the Word of God is actually a sin and it has dire consequences. I understand you want to get your point across, but do not turn the Scriptures into playdough that serves your agenda. There are other arguments you can use to prove your point.
@Samseau your insistence that it's sinful to not vote must be repented of. You have no warrant from either the Scriptures or from the Fathers in your own tradition to try to bind men's consciences the way you are attempting. Calling something a sin, that the Scriptures do not call a sin, is adding to the Word of God. Unlike not voting, adding to the Word of God is actually a sin and it has dire consequences. I understand you want to get your point across, but do not turn the Scriptures into playdough that serves your agenda. There are other arguments you can use to prove your point.
Last edited:
Cherry picking is such bad form. If you're going to quote Catholic Catechism then at least least read the entire article to provide context.
See CCC 2242 "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49"
Article V under Part 3 is worth reading in its entirety.
If anti-sodomy laws were out back into place or or if gay marriage was no longer recognized by the state do you think the response by the general public would be "well can't do anything about it guess fudge packing is something only done at the chocolate factory now" or would there be constant unrest and agitation until eventually the administration that is enforcing those laws is thrown out or until they are forced to bend to the public's will? My bet is on the latter. We already have an example of this with prohibition where no alcohol was the law of the land and actually part of the highest law of the land since it was an Constitutional Amendment There was enough outcry against it that it was overturned.
As for your example of anti-murder or anti-rape laws, the reason they are effective is because the vast majority of people do not believe murder or rape is something that should be accepted in society. I don't think people suddenly became anti-murder or anti-rape just because there are laws against those acts. Rather they was already a broad popular consensus against rape or murder and the laws were made to reflect that. No one is looking to overturn these laws while if you had anti sodomy laws , a majority of the public would be looking to get rid of them because that's where the hearts of most people are now, including even most conservatives.
The left uses the law to suppress agitation on the right. You're saying it doesn't work, but I see it working already, just not in the right direction. Just to give some examples: you had Trump who's too scared to call in the national guard on the Soros goons who were burning cities down and murdering people on one hand, and you had the national guard being called in to "guard" the Capitol because some right wingers took a tour through Congress on Jan 6th. See how effective force is?
The blame for this not only falls on the left, but most especially the conservatives who capitulated to the left. The same way we are being told we must capitulate to the left now if we want to win an election. It's ultimately self-defeating, as this issue and others prove without a doubt. When will the right learn its lesson?
Last edited:
I agree force is effective which is why I use the example of the public agitating in the case of anti-sodomy laws coming into being. There is broad support for homosexual behavior whether it be full on glorification on the left or the normies right wing attitude of 'well it's not my thing but let them live their life". If someone how was about to legislate against homosexual behavior - or perhaps even a better example, heterosexual fornication - do you think the state would possess enough force to enforce these laws or would they fall to the force of the vast majority of the public who use their force to defend their right to coom? This is a good example of a law not being able to prefent a certain behavior of that behavior is already super normalized and culturally seen as acceptable.
Last edited:
Stop this ridiculousness please. It's your very own made up theology, which you use to judge your fellow Christians.
Your idol is not a Christian. The one time when he tried to hold the Bible up, he held it upside down.
And the one time he tried to say he is a Christian, he mumbled his words so that the plebs can debate if he really said he is a Christian or not.
This is no coincidence.
Last edited:
Are you asking me if I think the state would be able to beat liberal agitators in a fight over the right to sodomy? Yes, yes I do. I don't think you would see an epic public uprising over this. The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other and just want to be left alone. People could hardly be arsed to stand up for their voting rights. You would get your true believers on the left who'd want to fight, but that would come to an end after you cut off their money supply from their bosses, who are the first people that need to be looked at.
The left thrives on intimidation. The average person just doesn't want to deal with it, so they let the left have whatever they want. The left is like a spoiled toddler who knows he can get whatever he wants if he just kicks and screams loud enough.
I think the point of disagreement we're going to be stuck on is whether people would rise up against something like encoding Biblical standards for sexuality into secular law and whether the state would be able to suppress it. At this point with the way our culture and the way the average median person is I do think you would see an uproar over anti-sodomy laws and it wouldn't just be your standard antifa or women's March types but I think a lot of normies would actually start behaving like your typical liberal agitators if they saw their ability to coom restricted. Even some normie conservative who might not be overly gung ho over homosexuality on a personal level would start fighting because he's going to feel like if the state starts having a say in something like homosexual behavior then next the state might be something that would affect his personal life such as restricting his ability to access porn or fornicate.
Even putting the Bible aside, homosexuality is so blatantly destructive to a society that it's in any society's best interest to abolish it. Right now, the agenda is depopulation, so the people at the top promote it and propagate it in other countries with military force. When you argue for abolishing it, the left says "you're just trying to impose your religion on everybody." They say this as they are imposing their secular worldview on everybody. Christians need to stop acting like the world is somehow neutral to the claims of Christ, the myth of neutrality is a spell that pacifies them.
If your normie conservative would fight over the abolishment of homosexuality, but can't be bothered to fight over the mutilation of kids, and the outsourcing of the family to the state, then he deserves everything he has coming to him and more.
Love thy country logically follows from love thy Neighbor. The "Why You Should Vote Thread" cites all of my claims in a logical manner. You insisting to the contrary isn't going to convince me, so if you'd like to present an argument please do so in the other thread.
Likewise, I fully accept I may have made an error, but I do not think so. If my Bishop tells me I am wrong, I will fully repent in the case of offending anyone.
But this has nothing to do with voting. Voting does not defile one's conscience because it does not even come close to violating the demands of moral order, our fundamental rights, or teachings of the Gospel. In fact voting is community and Neighbor oriented, and is a fundamental right.
Voting takes very little time and does not impede serving God in the slightest, although yes people who become obsessed with politics are wasting their time and could be sinning.
I'm haven't judged anyone. We're all sinners, myself chief among them, and, I do not think lower of someone simply because they sin.
As for your judgement of Trump, we must remember that we too are sinners and we should be thankful of even a 1% Christian leader in these fallen times, I doubt anything better will come after Trump. The population is only growing worse with each year, and more divided, so it will be impossible to get anything better than Trump afterwards.
In my research for Fascism Viewed From The Cross, which was endorsed by Fr. Turbo Qualls in his podcast “The Royal Path,” I did not come across a single example of an Orthodox Saint who promoted or defended democracy. They may exist somewhere and it’s entirely possible I missed something, but each quote on the topic that I found (and these are included in the book) was explicitly against the notion.
If one wants to go down the reasonable path of “well this is the system we have and we have to make the best of it,” there are still strict limits on who a person can vote for and there is no concept whatsoever that one must vote for a pro-gay, pro-choice Zionist because to not vote is “a sin.” If both candidates are pro-gay and pro-choice, which is the case with this upcoming election, it seems rather evil to tell people they have to support one of those candidates to lead the country.
The Orthodox Ethos website puts the follow relevant boundaries on morality as it relates to voting:
“Furthermore, Orthodox Christians cannot vote for:
1. Those who are aggressively pro-abortion and support a law which has allowed for the murder of 60 million human beings since it was passed.
- a. Those who support abortion for any reason, or no reason, up to and - believe it or not for some - even beyond the moment of birth.
- b. Those who want the government to fund abortions, who will force Americans to pay for this grievous sin.
- c. Those who support physician-assisted suicide.
(Source: https://v1.orthodoxethos.com/podcas...d-i-vote-st-paisios-of-mt-athos-is-your-guide)
Trump and Harris are both pro-gay and pro-choice, which I personally find makes them unelectable. To say this sentiment is “hatred of my neighbor” or “hatred of my country” is the sort of low-level, effeminate rhetoric that I don’t think most posters on this forum are going to be fooled by. This isn’t CNN, and the people here aren’t NPCs; it’s the successor to the RVF, which was a baptized sort of ROK. The people that have been around since those days are generally immune to preschool-level dialectical tricks and emotional manipulation.
I understand the “least worst option” perspective, and why some people choose that route (I did this myself after all, having voted against Biden in 2020 by voting for Donald Trump). I haven’t seen any Saint or Council describe doing so as “a sin” so I would never suggest that it is, even though I’m at a place where I’m no longer comfortable doing such things. But if anyone tells you it’s a sin not to vote for a pro-gay, pro-choice Presidential candidate then I’m confident you can safely ignore that person’s opinion on both politics and Christianity.
Last edited:
I don't agree it's a sin to not vote. I happen to think it's a shirking of your civic duty but I don't know it to be a sin. My priests are all voting and I happen to know which way they're voting and it ain't for a Hindu pagan lady...
I disagree vehemently with your characterization of one being pro gay or pro choice compared to the other.... your committed to that point and while I disagree... I get your point.
The first Orthodox service I went to, I was fortunate to have Metropolitan Isaiah, a Marine, give a sermon about the Constitution and the beauty of our system.
Franky... Your bigger issue isn't Trump, which you've posted in multiple threads about, it's the reality of human politics in America TODAY. There is never going to be this perfect candidate you speak of. And if he were to appear, you'd find a reason to castigate him as well because that seems to be your nature, at least from my assessment.
Youre going to force yourself out of participation in all fronts by this logic... Which is your prerogative. But It doesn't help the greater good.
As man has no remedy he resolves himself to a feeling of despair. That may not be where you are, but for many whom accept your point of view, a quiet yet overwhelming apathy will subsume their psyche.
I don't think that mentality benefits all who are struggling and fighting against the system we all live in.
Do you think voting is:
A. the BEST way to help the greater good / struggle against the system?
B. the ONLY way to help the greater good / struggle against the system?
This is rhetorical. Obviously it is neither.
He is correct, there is no energy there. It feels like 2000 all over again. No one really wants Bush (Trump) but the alternative is worse and Bush (Trump) wins by thin margins is my prediction.
A lot of people do not feel that way.
I think people who are already despondent do. But many do not
Well, each side has their base. And the GOP base is excited for Trump. But the non-base portion of voters are not excited, as much as I think the bad economy will drive them to vote for the other guy, the other guy being Trump the incumbent. That is just how it feels to me right now.
Like I'd tell my wife, read more talk less. Your attempt at online preacher is embarrassing. Trying to impose your weird belief system is cringe and shows a lack of understanding of scripture and church teaching.