Donald Trump attacks Hillary Clinton as wins set stage for brutal election

[Peter_J]

She should get along just fine since she can morph into anyone.

Then I hope she doesn’t mind competition!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Machiavelli once wrote that wars may begin where you want, but they do not always end where you want.

Threads are a lot like that, too.

Yes

 

[PRmerger]

If direct quotes of what God has said that are written in the bible can be false (as in he never said any such thing), then how can we know that any other quote was in fact really said?

By looking at the context, the history, the Church, the faith which gave us these “direct quotes”.

It’s a direct quote that God made the world in 7 days.

“On the seventh day God completed the work he had been doing; he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken”.–Genesis 2:2

There’s nary an educated Catholic who takes it in the same way you seem to be taking the “God commands genocide” verse.

(Are you of the position that God made the universe in 7 days?)

 

[meltzerboy]

What label was applied to Mrs. Clinton when she got fired from the Watergate commission investigation team?

There is a back story to this incident that was discussed on another thread a while ago. I understand Hillary was not responsible for any wrongdoing here. However, there are plenty of other scandals or perceptions of scandals associated with her that may be justified even though this is not one of them.

 

[DeniseNY]

Great idea! Manchin is one of the Dems who shows common sense.

My first introduction to Manchin was during the WV mine collapse. He certainly left an impression!

 

[gracepoole]

I think Senate republicans liked her better than Ted.

Senate Republicans seem to like anyone and everyone better than Ted.

 

[Crossbones]

Senate Republicans seem to like anyone and everyone better than Ted.

Have you ever worked with someone as universally hated as Ted Cruz apparently is in the Senate? I don’t think I ever had and I worked with some difficult people.

 

[Peter_J]

Senate Republicans seem to like anyone and everyone better than Ted.

Listening to all this talk, I’m starting to think that when a reporter asks Trump what factors led to his becoming the presumptive, “Ted Cruz being in the race” will be first on the list.

 

[DaveBj]

In November, right?

(I know, it does seem like forever… )

. . . at which time the process for 2020 will start

 

[Tomdstone]

So your position is that God endorses genocide?

I will clearly and vociferously declare that as a Christian Catholic that I vehemently REJECT that view.

God does NOT endorse genocide.

You?

This is your view of the God you worship?

What is your explanation of the passage?

 

[PRmerger]

What is your explanation of the passage?

I support Fr. Barron’s view (see reference cited earlier), as well as the explanation posited by Jimmy Akin:
jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

If this is the case then God never did command the extermination of the
Canaanites and we, because we are not familiar with the way literature
was written at this time, tend to take as literal something that was
never meant to be literal

In this case the commands found in the Pentateuch concerning the
Canaanites would not be meant to be taken in a literal sense. We know
that the early history in Scripture contains symbolic elements as well
as literal ones, and these commands would then turn out to be symbolic.

 

[PRmerger]

What is your explanation of the passage?

What is* your* explanation of the passages?

 

[Trader]

I would be wary of trusting polls either way. They change constantly, everything that happens affects them on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. But the fact is the numbers are there for either Trump or Clinton to prevail. Just depends on who votes in November.

I think this would be especially true for this year. Trump seems to energize both his supporters and his detractors. A lot of these people have not voted before and may not be contacted by pollsters. At the same time, a lot of people who have voted regularly may be disgusted with both Trump and Clinton and not vote at all. The pollsters may not be using a model that can work.

 

[adawgj]

While I am skeptical of this poll, I could see Trump winning the election, especially if Bernie Sanders supporters either stay home or write in Bernie Sanders.

Knowing quite a few Bernie supporters this is what the millennials will probably do.

 

[anon67074017]

While I am skeptical of this poll, I could see Trump winning the election, especially if Bernie Sanders supporters either stay home or write in Bernie Sanders.

Knowing quite a few Bernie supporters this is what the millennials will probably do.

They may even want to take arms for Bernie’s cause.

 

[meltzerboy]

I support Fr. Barron’s view (see reference cited earlier), as well as the explanation posited by Jimmy Akin:
jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

The consensus of Jewish interpretation of these passages is that genocide as a physical act of annihilation is not permitted. However, a spiritual genocide to wipe out immoral behavior is condoned. Thus, Maimonides and Nachmanides both view the killing of the Canaanite men, women, and children as pertaining to exerting positive moral influence and education to extinguish immorality rather than physical killing.

 

[Tomdstone]

I support Fr. Barron’s view (see reference cited earlier), as well as the explanation posited by Jimmy Akin:
jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

Aiken says that he believes that there is a meaning to the suffering of innocent people, but doesn’t tell us what that meaning is.

 

[Tomdstone]

The consensus of Jewish interpretation of these passages is that genocide as a physical act of annihilation is not permitted. However, a spiritual genocide to wipe out immoral behavior is condoned. Thus, Maimonides and Nachmanides both view the killing of the Canaanite men, women, and children as pertaining to exerting positive moral influence and education to extinguish immorality rather than physical killing.

So, if there is a passage that you don’t like in the Scripture, it should be interpreted figuratively? Of course, this is done all the time. Take for example, the way that the LG people get around the passages condemning homosexual activity.

 

[RPRPsych]

. . . at which time the process for 2020 will start

2020 might be more interesting, especially if Mrs. Clinton loses this time - who will the Democrats field? Sanders again? (Anno Domini might preclude that.) A clone of President Obama? Alternately, if Trump loses, it might galvanize the Republican Party into being more circumspect and prudent in its selection of candidates.

 

[Darryl1958]

So, if there is a passage that you don’t like in the Scripture, it should be interpreted figuratively? Of course, this is done all the time. Take for example, the way that the LG people get around the passages condemning homosexual activity.

Aren’t you rather glad that all Jewish and all Christians have found ways to understand that genocide is inherently evil?

I have an idea at the time that those passages of the Bible were written, the warrior tribes that were the conduit for the message of the time could not have even had any respect for a God who would not eradicate their enemies. To stay true to the history, the passages need to be understood in a literal sense too, for this was a particularly chaotic and violent period in the Levant, according to the archaeological record.
What would be the purpose for us to replicate that period now though, to pray to God to cooperate in genocide against our enemies?
Being part of a Sacred History implies that there be movement, that there be spiritual growth, and there has been, to where it is universally agreed that genocide ought not be a cooperative venture between God and his people.
The whole trend of the Bible has been to allow us to understand who is our neighbour, and what our relationship ought to be like with the other, with our enemy.

That that was something that Biblical people began to struggle with is part of the historical record, as recorded in the Bible. We still struggle with those kinds of questions.
But for 4000 years of dealing with God to have been of any benefit at all, wouldn’t the minimum progression include an understanding that genocidal campaign against others is simply wrong?

I don’t personally think that God needs to be dumped on account of such passages, although virtually any atheist would disagree, and have dumped God already because of these passages.

And yes, ‘spiritualizing’ passages to the point of negating the original literal understanding does create the cafeteria scenario of selecting and rejecting according to taste.

I personally can reference the Bible itself though to come to an understanding that genocide is wrong, that sacrificing your own child is wrong even. The Bible becomes clearer and clearer on these issues through the Prophets, through the message of Jonah to Nineveh, through the new Jonah, who is Jesus.
Spiritualizing the passages about genocide is an authentic faith because the Bible does the same.
To come away from the Bible with an understanding that sodomy is a fantastic thing though, requires one to go beyond anything that the Bible does in order to even imagine how that kind of scenario might be possible.
To do that, one must move from an authentic faith into a purely political one.