Our sermon this Sunday was an exposition of classic just war theory. (Our priest said at the Lent discussion over coffee that if he'd had time he'd have talked about the Christian pacifist tradition as well.) Ius ad bellum (morality in going to war) has six traditional criteria that all have to be met (*); unsurprisingly, our priest didn't think any recent declaration of war met even half of them.
He didn't think the criteria of ius in bello (morality while waging war) were being met either.
(*) Just cause; legitimate authority to declare war; last resort; just intention, to seek peace once achieved; the harm and destruction caused must be less than the wrong inflicted; reasonable prospect of success.
Yes. I think Just War Theory is a more useful criterion for determining the morality of waging a given war than is the Sermon on the Mount.
I'd say the Sermon on the Mount presents the ideal that Christians should aim for in their life, and in the life of the Church. The reality is that we won't achieve that, as there will always be interpersonal conflicts within the Church (and, indeed, individuals can find themselves conflicted and not at peace with themselves) where being a peacemaker is going to be beyond human ability. An unachievable ideal this side of the fulfilment of the Kingdom is still a good thing to have, constantly calling us to do better.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
Just War Theory is an attempt at such an extrapolation from Biblical themes to how nations conduct themselves, and tries to bridge the gap between the ideals of how individual Christian communities conduct themselves and how a nation fulfils roles that are not the same as Christian communities (eg: a Christian community may put peaceful living above all else, even when that makes them victims of violence by others, which was of course the experience of many early Christians as they were martyred for their faith; but a nation where not everyone shares that ideal of self-sacrifice would have a requirement to protect the poor and the weak, and hence have need to use force for policing and criminal justice and to protect the people of the nation from other nations should they be aggressive). We can still say that all war is evil, but Just War Theory gives nations a get out of the lesser of two evils.
* I use the phrase carefully, because the alternative phrase "Christian nation" a) carries an enormous amount of unhelpful baggage, and b) is (IMO) incompatible with the core Christian teaching of the NT, which is concerned with a Kingdom of Heaven/God that is not of this world but in this world transcending political boundaries of individual nations. Not that "nations claiming Christian heritage" is really all that much better, and is a phrase that also has it's problems, I just couldn't come up with a better shorthand for an extensive essay while I wrote this.
Of course he still has support: the support of the millions who see him as their role model in the laissez-faire world of corruption and depravity of which they dream. It is working handsomely for the 6 January insurrectionists and for the otherwise unemployable now on the ICE payroll.
You might say.
I think you are talking about MAGA (America First) supporters like me. CNN reports 9/10 in support.
And that’s his base. While I identify with the Republican brand, I no longer support the RNC as they have proven themselves ineffective, beholden to special interests and weak. But MAGA?
In ship’s terms— I’m fully on board. Deal with it.
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
I'd say the Sermon on the Mount presents the ideal that Christians should aim for in their life, and in the life of the Church. The reality is that we won't achieve that, as there will always be interpersonal conflicts within the Church (and, indeed, individuals can find themselves conflicted and not at peace with themselves) where being a peacemaker is going to be beyond human ability. An unachievable ideal this side of the fulfilment of the Kingdom is still a good thing to have, constantly calling us to do better.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
Just War Theory is an attempt at such an extrapolation from Biblical themes to how nations conduct themselves, and tries to bridge the gap between the ideals of how individual Christian communities conduct themselves and how a nation fulfils roles that are not the same as Christian communities (eg: a Christian community may put peaceful living above all else, even when that makes them victims of violence by others, which was of course the experience of many early Christians as they were martyred for their faith; but a nation where not everyone shares that ideal of self-sacrifice would have a requirement to protect the poor and the weak, and hence have need to use force for policing and criminal justice and to protect the people of the nation from other nations should they be aggressive). We can still say that all war is evil, but Just War Theory gives nations a get out of the lesser of two evils.
* I use the phrase carefully, because the alternative phrase "Christian nation" a) carries an enormous amount of unhelpful baggage, and b) is (IMO) incompatible with the corYes, I'd broadlye Christian teaching of the NT, which is concerned with a Kingdom of Heaven/God that is not of this world but in this world transcending political boundaries of individual nations. Not that "nations claiming Christian heritage" is really all that much better, and is a phrase that also has it's problems, I just couldn't come up with a better shorthand for an extensive essay while I wrote this.
Yes, that's a fair conclusion, But one would have to add in the caveat that 'Just War Theory' is too often used as a fig-leaf to make wars which are not just seem to be at least 'justified'.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
When considering national governments in light of NT teaching, I think I tend to think in terms of Jesus’s regular comparisons of the “kingdom of this world” and the “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of heaven,” as well as his instruction that we pray for God’s kingdom to come. In that context, the question for me is one of whether by supporting x that the government is doing or by opposing y that the government is doing, I am praying and working for the coming of the kingdom of God or whether I’m on the side of the kingdom of this world.
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
When considering national governments in light of NT teaching, I think I tend to think in terms of Jesus’s regular comparisons of the “kingdoms of this world” and “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven,” as well as his instruction that we pray for God’s kingdom to come. In that context, the question for me is one of whether by supporting x that the government is doing or by opposing y that the government is doing, I am praying and working for the coming of the kingdom of God or whether I’m on the side of the kingdoms of this world.
Of course he still has support: the support of the millions who see him as their role model in the laissez-faire world of corruption and depravity of which they dream. It is working handsomely for the 6 January insurrectionists and for the otherwise unemployable now on the ICE payroll.
You might say.
I think you are talking about MAGA (America First) supporters like me. CNN reports 9/10 in support.
And that’s his base. While I identify with the Republican brand, I no longer support the RNC as they have proven themselves ineffective, beholden to special interests and weak. But MAGA?
In ship’s terms— I’m fully on board. Deal with it.
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
You guys have done so well.
Don't worry - it'll all turn out OK in the end. After all, Trump has been anointed by God, presumably to be the Saviour of America, and to bring about not only Armageddon, but also the Second Coming of Jesus.
Of course he still has support: the support of the millions who see him as their role model in the laissez-faire world of corruption and depravity of which they dream. It is working handsomely for the 6 January insurrectionists and for the otherwise unemployable now on the ICE payroll.
You might say.
I think you are talking about MAGA (America First) supporters like me. CNN reports 9/10 in support.
And that’s his base. While I identify with the Republican brand, I no longer support the RNC as they have proven themselves ineffective, beholden to special interests and weak. But MAGA?
In ship’s terms— I’m fully on board. Deal with it.
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
You guys have done so well.
Don't worry - it'll all turn out OK in the end. After all, Trump has been anointed by God, presumably to be the Saviour of America, and to bring about not only Armageddon, but also the Second Coming of Jesus.
So I'm told.
Trump as almost convinced me there is a Satan that does try our souls (as in Job).
A literal interpretation of Revelation, complete with a literal Antichrist, is seeming more plausible.
It’s certainly occurred to me. I don’t know if there will be a literal individual who will be the Antichrist, or if it’s symbolic of various things (which could certainly fit with the direction some things are going in), but I think Trump is simply too stupid to actually be the Antichrist. He’s pretty beastly, though, but even then I don’t think he’s the Great Beast. And that’s even of those parts are describing specific events that are to come, rather than just an “Antichrist spirit” (in the sense of an attitude of cruelty and hatred, which seems to be around a lot sadly).
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
That made me laugh, which is a typically unhelpful UK response to disaster.
A bit niche, but I am reminded of the 'devil' figure in what might be the weirdest of Lewis's weird sci-fi trilogy (the middle one...I'm going to have to look it up...'Perelandra'). He is found, sat red-handed, at the end of a trail of pointlessly mutilated and suffering frogs in a kind of Eden, with a kind of insolent and stupid expression on his face. I wish I could find the actual quote, because the image stuck with me as typical of evil. How strange (without a belief in God) that some of the most supposedly powerful people might be usefully described as insolent.
Could you please (perhaps on another thread) provide a list of the things that need purgring and cleansing? I really would like to know. Being in the UK, I wonder if the list of things we need to repent of tally with the list explicit in thepronouncements of religious organisations like Gafcon and (so help me) implicit in the literature of Reform.
I know good folk in both 'camps'.
As a Brit I am also affected by the actions your poster boy has taken. Our prices will be affected. Our energy supply will be affected. Both negatively.
There is absolutely no legal basis for the attack on Iran. That is proven and undeniable. Little Donny is dissing us because we won’t join in his illegal war and at the same time asking for help from us.
I have noticed that you do not provide any argument to back up your views.
I agree that if you take Revaluation to be a road map of the end times Trumps fits the Antichrist perfectly
trump started the fire, now he wants everyone to run and put it out for him.
His method? First flatter and cagole, then threat. (Mind you, his vocabulary is so limited that people are either 'nice' or 'nasty' depending on whether they become his courtiers and bend to his will or not.)
I imagine this has happened since he was a very small toddler.
Hopefully this is where it stops.
trump has no regard, or even thought of consequences - and only reacts to them when affected personally.
trump started the fire, now he wants everyone to run and put it out for him.
Actually, it looks more like he wants other nations to come and add a bit more gas to the fire. Putting out the fire would need to include a ceasefire by both US and Israel, not more nations sending in planes and ships, and nations coming together with Iran to discuss a binding treaty that the US President can't arbitrarily renege on.
trump started the fire, now he wants everyone to run and put it out for him.
Actually, it looks more like he wants other nations to come and add a bit more gas to the fire. Putting out the fire would need to include a ceasefire by both US and Israel, not more nations sending in planes and ships, and nations coming together with Iran to discuss a binding treaty that the US President can't arbitrarily renege on.
Can any treaty be binding where Trump is involved?
I agree that if you take Revaluation to be a road map of the end times Trumps fits the Antichrist perfectly
I don't think so, unless we're just meaning in the very general sense that the Beast of Revelation is a guy who does a lot of bad stuff.
Just for starters, the Beast is described as being extremely popular throughout the world("All who dwell on the earth will worship him"), but Trump can't break 50% approval in his own country, and polls even worse elsewhere.
Criteria for dyslexia have historically required reading abilities significantly below what their general intelligence would suggest, implying that in most instances dyslexic people will be of at least average ability (in so far as it is meaningful to talk about such things). I once taught a lad who we couldn't safely call dyslexic precisely because his reading difficulties were of a piece with most of his other abilities (pleased to say the lad in question now has a steady job and is getting married soon, and is a pretty capable musician).
Thanks for the elaborations. Maybe I should have included some myself. Working with students with disabilities on a day to day basis probably leads to me assuming most people know this information. hank you Doublethink, Boogie and Arethosemyfeet.
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
Let me help with that. Should a "Trump is the antichrist" thread originate in Purgatory, or should it go straight to Hell?
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
Let me help with that. Should a "Trump is the antichrist" thread originate in Purgatory, or should it go straight to Hell?
Is there any point in anyone responding to a new thread you make about Trump if you won't actually engage in this one?
Also, having dyslexia does not equal having a low IQ - it s a specific cognitive problem not a global one.
The article @Caissa linked didn't include Newsom's full quote. What he actually said, speaking to a predominantly black audience in Atlanta and linking his dyslexia to his low IQ directly, was this:
"I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you, I am like you. I am no better than you. I am a 960 SAT guy."
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
Let me help with that. Should a "Trump is the antichrist" thread originate in Purgatory, or should it go straight to Hell?
Is there any point in anyone responding to a new thread you make about Trump if you won't actually engage in this one?
This thread is nothing more than a rage-baiting therapy group for the delusional like-minded. I recognize it as such and encourage you all to continue, if it helps.
Serious attempts to defend Trump go in Purgatory, should there be such a thing.
A "Trump is the antichrist" could hardly be considered any kind of attempt at defending Trump. I don't understand your point. "Serious" question-- where would such a thread be best placed?
-He's boastful
-He survived a serious head wound
-He rides around in 'The Beast'
-He calls down fire from the sky
-The whole world follows after him.
These are just off the top of my head. We could certainly go down the rabbit hole.
Serious attempts to defend Trump go in Purgatory, should there be such a thing.
A "Trump is the antichrist" could hardly be considered any kind of attempt at defending Trump. I don't understand your point. "Serious" question-- where would such a thread be best placed?
-He's boastful
-He survived a serious head wound
-He rides around in 'The Beast'
-He calls down fire from the sky
-The whole world follows after him.
These are just off the top of my head. We could certainly go down the rabbit hole.
O dear. I think you need professional help. IANAD, by the way.
Serious attempts to defend Trump go in Purgatory, should there be such a thing.
A "Trump is the antichrist" could hardly be considered any kind of attempt at defending Trump. I don't understand your point.
You were criticized for not engaging in this thread. His point was that this is a Hell thread. It exists for venting; serious engagement isn’t necessary and posters are under no obligation of any kind to mount any sorts of defenses.
Serious discussion, including engagement or defenses of Trump, belongs in Purgatory, not Hell.
The thing that worries me, that I never thought of before Trump, is that, well, nobody ever ruled out a stupid Antichrist. In fact, it would be strangely fitting for a species that was dumb enough to trust the devil in the first place. (And how embarrassing if we meet other intelligent beings in the kingdom of God, to have to explain just how our world came to an end! "Well, there was this guy...")
Let me help with that. Should a "Trump is the antichrist" thread originate in Purgatory, or should it go straight to Hell?
I'm not interested in trying to identify the Antichrist, regardless of whether it's Trump or not. He's clearly AN antichrist, of which there are always scads at any particular time in history. If you're interested yourself in that thread topic, it goes in Purgatory unless you intend to say the kinds of things only permitted in Hell.
And I expect you won't believe me, but I do pray for the man. IMHO he needs all the prayers he can get.
Also, having dyslexia does not equal having a low IQ - it s a specific cognitive problem not a global one.
The article @Caissa linked didn't include Newsom's full quote. What he actually said, speaking to a predominantly black audience in Atlanta and linking his dyslexia to his low IQ directly, was this:
"I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you, I am like you. I am no better than you. I am a 960 SAT guy."
When he's not pandering, he's patronizing.
Newsom being an arsehole doesn't make Trump any less of one. You understand that, right?
Also, having dyslexia does not equal having a low IQ - it s a specific cognitive problem not a global one.
The article @Caissa linked didn't include Newsom's full quote. What he actually said, speaking to a predominantly black audience in Atlanta and linking his dyslexia to his low IQ directly, was this:
"I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you, I am like you. I am no better than you. I am a 960 SAT guy."
Serious attempts to defend Trump go in Purgatory, should there be such a thing.
A "Trump is the antichrist" could hardly be considered any kind of attempt at defending Trump. I don't understand your point.
You were criticized for not engaging in this thread. His point was that this is a Hell thread. It exists for venting; serious engagement isn’t necessary and posters are under no obligation of any kind to mount any sorts of defenses.
Serious discussion, including engagement or defenses of Trump, belongs in Purgatory, not Hell.
In that case, you'll have to forgive me for not paying any attention to criticism here. I'll initiate a thread to seriously discuss the topic in Purgatory, thx.
Also, having dyslexia does not equal having a low IQ - it s a specific cognitive problem not a global one.
The article @Caissa linked didn't include Newsom's full quote. What he actually said, speaking to a predominantly black audience in Atlanta and linking his dyslexia to his low IQ directly, was this:
"I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you, I am like you. I am no better than you. I am a 960 SAT guy."
When he's not pandering, he's patronizing.
Newsom being an arsehole doesn't make Trump any less of one. You understand that, right?
Trump was merely referencing what Newsom actually said, not some sanitized and inaccurate version of it from the BBC.
The point has been made - many times - that 'the AntiChrist' is supposed to be an attractive figure. That can hardly be said of Trump...
You'll likely have a difficult time finding a scriptural reference to back up your supposition. Charismatic- yes-- Physically attractive? no where in scripture. Stop reading the Left Behind series.
Trump is certainly a charismatic leader. Even those who despise him hang on his every word as evidenced right here in this thread.
Also, having dyslexia does not equal having a low IQ - it s a specific cognitive problem not a global one.
The article @Caissa linked didn't include Newsom's full quote. What he actually said, speaking to a predominantly black audience in Atlanta and linking his dyslexia to his low IQ directly, was this:
"I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you, I am like you. I am no better than you. I am a 960 SAT guy."
When he's not pandering, he's patronizing.
Nowhere in there does he mention a low IQ.
SAT scores of that vintage apparently have reasonable correlation with IQ, but a 960 is around 106, top 35% ish, so not "low" in any absolute sense: https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/satiq.aspx
Given that Trump brags about "acing" cognitive assessments designed to more or less check whether you're safe to cook your own meals he's lobbing rocks from a lead crystal house.
Comments
But, I'd also say that the New Testament is effectively silent on how nations conduct themselves, it's simply not something that would have been even remotely relevant to the authors of those texts and their original audiences. Which, of course, doesn't mean we can't extrapolate from (say) the Beatitudes to ideals nations (especially any claiming Christian heritage*) should aim for, and also within democracies what we as individuals trying to aim for those ideals would consider appropriate choices to vote for. An extrapolation doesn't negate the underlying Biblical teaching, indeed it would be meaningless without it. So, it's not an either the Sermon on the Mount or Just War Theory, we need to approach international affairs as Christians holding both together.
Just War Theory is an attempt at such an extrapolation from Biblical themes to how nations conduct themselves, and tries to bridge the gap between the ideals of how individual Christian communities conduct themselves and how a nation fulfils roles that are not the same as Christian communities (eg: a Christian community may put peaceful living above all else, even when that makes them victims of violence by others, which was of course the experience of many early Christians as they were martyred for their faith; but a nation where not everyone shares that ideal of self-sacrifice would have a requirement to protect the poor and the weak, and hence have need to use force for policing and criminal justice and to protect the people of the nation from other nations should they be aggressive). We can still say that all war is evil, but Just War Theory gives nations a get out of the lesser of two evils.
* I use the phrase carefully, because the alternative phrase "Christian nation" a) carries an enormous amount of unhelpful baggage, and b) is (IMO) incompatible with the core Christian teaching of the NT, which is concerned with a Kingdom of Heaven/God that is not of this world but in this world transcending political boundaries of individual nations. Not that "nations claiming Christian heritage" is really all that much better, and is a phrase that also has it's problems, I just couldn't come up with a better shorthand for an extensive essay while I wrote this.
@Mr E
I would like to thank you and your other 77 million buddies:
Food prices up.
Gas prices up.
America at war.
Americans terrorized by their own government
Little kids incarcerated
Incompetent fools running the government
You guys have done so well.
Yes, that's a fair conclusion, But one would have to add in the caveat that 'Just War Theory' is too often used as a fig-leaf to make wars which are not just seem to be at least 'justified'.
Don't worry - it'll all turn out OK in the end. After all, Trump has been anointed by God, presumably to be the Saviour of America, and to bring about not only Armageddon, but also the Second Coming of Jesus.
So I'm told.
Trump as almost convinced me there is a Satan that does try our souls (as in Job).
It’s certainly occurred to me. I don’t know if there will be a literal individual who will be the Antichrist, or if it’s symbolic of various things (which could certainly fit with the direction some things are going in), but I think Trump is simply too stupid to actually be the Antichrist. He’s pretty beastly, though, but even then I don’t think he’s the Great Beast. And that’s even of those parts are describing specific events that are to come, rather than just an “Antichrist spirit” (in the sense of an attitude of cruelty and hatred, which seems to be around a lot sadly).
That idea has occurred to me as well, but I think things can be explained by sadder (what it says about humanity) and simpler things…
You need to purge before you can cleanse.
Can I ask what it is that you like about Donald Trump? Are there any of his policies that you don’t like?
I take it you're too much of a coward to actually make some defence of your idiot idol and his cronies so you're just going to jeer instead?
That made me laugh, which is a typically unhelpful UK response to disaster.
A bit niche, but I am reminded of the 'devil' figure in what might be the weirdest of Lewis's weird sci-fi trilogy (the middle one...I'm going to have to look it up...'Perelandra'). He is found, sat red-handed, at the end of a trail of pointlessly mutilated and suffering frogs in a kind of Eden, with a kind of insolent and stupid expression on his face. I wish I could find the actual quote, because the image stuck with me as typical of evil. How strange (without a belief in God) that some of the most supposedly powerful people might be usefully described as insolent.
Could you please (perhaps on another thread) provide a list of the things that need purgring and cleansing? I really would like to know. Being in the UK, I wonder if the list of things we need to repent of tally with the list explicit in thepronouncements of religious organisations like Gafcon and (so help me) implicit in the literature of Reform.
I know good folk in both 'camps'.
Purgatory would indeed appear to be the appopriate board for such a thread.
As a Brit I am also affected by the actions your poster boy has taken. Our prices will be affected. Our energy supply will be affected. Both negatively.
There is absolutely no legal basis for the attack on Iran. That is proven and undeniable. Little Donny is dissing us because we won’t join in his illegal war and at the same time asking for help from us.
I have noticed that you do not provide any argument to back up your views.
I agree that if you take Revaluation to be a road map of the end times Trumps fits the Antichrist perfectly
His method? First flatter and cagole, then threat. (Mind you, his vocabulary is so limited that people are either 'nice' or 'nasty' depending on whether they become his courtiers and bend to his will or not.)
I imagine this has happened since he was a very small toddler.
Hopefully this is where it stops.
trump has no regard, or even thought of consequences - and only reacts to them when affected personally.
Meanwhile - Epstein?
Can any treaty be binding where Trump is involved?
I don't think so, unless we're just meaning in the very general sense that the Beast of Revelation is a guy who does a lot of bad stuff.
Just for starters, the Beast is described as being extremely popular throughout the world("All who dwell on the earth will worship him"), but Trump can't break 50% approval in his own country, and polls even worse elsewhere.
No surprise there at all - trump never fails to live down to our expectations.
IQ and dyslexia are not linked; dyslexia is a neurological learning difference in language processing and is not related to a person’s intelligence.
People with dyslexia can have any level of intelligence, ranging from average to gifted.
I'd love to see trump do an IQ test in public. 😂
Loathsome doesn't begin to do him justice.
Let me help with that. Should a "Trump is the antichrist" thread originate in Purgatory, or should it go straight to Hell?
Is there any point in anyone responding to a new thread you make about Trump if you won't actually engage in this one?
The article @Caissa linked didn't include Newsom's full quote. What he actually said, speaking to a predominantly black audience in Atlanta and linking his dyslexia to his low IQ directly, was this:
"I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you, I am like you. I am no better than you. I am a 960 SAT guy."
When he's not pandering, he's patronizing.
Serious attempts to defend Trump go in Purgatory, should there be such a thing.
This thread is nothing more than a rage-baiting therapy group for the delusional like-minded. I recognize it as such and encourage you all to continue, if it helps.
Does it?
A "Trump is the antichrist" could hardly be considered any kind of attempt at defending Trump. I don't understand your point. "Serious" question-- where would such a thread be best placed?
-He's boastful
-He survived a serious head wound
-He rides around in 'The Beast'
-He calls down fire from the sky
-The whole world follows after him.
These are just off the top of my head. We could certainly go down the rabbit hole.
O dear. I think you need professional help. IANAD, by the way.
Serious discussion, including engagement or defenses of Trump, belongs in Purgatory, not Hell.
I'm not interested in trying to identify the Antichrist, regardless of whether it's Trump or not. He's clearly AN antichrist, of which there are always scads at any particular time in history. If you're interested yourself in that thread topic, it goes in Purgatory unless you intend to say the kinds of things only permitted in Hell.
And I expect you won't believe me, but I do pray for the man. IMHO he needs all the prayers he can get.
Newsom being an arsehole doesn't make Trump any less of one. You understand that, right?
Nowhere in there does he mention a low IQ.
In that case, you'll have to forgive me for not paying any attention to criticism here. I'll initiate a thread to seriously discuss the topic in Purgatory, thx.
Trump was merely referencing what Newsom actually said, not some sanitized and inaccurate version of it from the BBC.
You'll likely have a difficult time finding a scriptural reference to back up your supposition. Charismatic- yes-- Physically attractive? no where in scripture. Stop reading the Left Behind series.
Trump is certainly a charismatic leader. Even those who despise him hang on his every word as evidenced right here in this thread.
SAT scores of that vintage apparently have reasonable correlation with IQ, but a 960 is around 106, top 35% ish, so not "low" in any absolute sense:
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/satiq.aspx
Given that Trump brags about "acing" cognitive assessments designed to more or less check whether you're safe to cook your own meals he's lobbing rocks from a lead crystal house.