Posted on 01/18/2016 10:26:35 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Donald Trump, speaking to a religious crowd at Virginia's Liberty University on Monday, turned to scripture.
"We're going to protect Christianity. I can say that. I don't have to be politically correct," he said. "Two Corinthians, 3:17, that's the whole ballgame ... is that the one you like?"
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Okay. Look a whole thread on this subject does get tedious.
Looking back I do recall some folks trying to be edgy speakers do something like this within the confines of the religious community. I never cared for it. I couldn’t really say what was on their mind when they did it, so it was a non-issue for me.
I appreciate your wind up related to Trump and Reagan.
Thanks.
Confusing me with someone else. I don’t recall saying “ Who cares if he’s even an atheist if he does that?”
That post was more damaging to you than it was to Trump.
I could bother to respond to it further, but it would be a waste of time.
You have my sympathy Roamer_1.
I know you don’t know why. That’s ok.
We have all fallen short of the glory of the Lord.
It looks as if he was using that scripture as a reference to Liberty University itself.
where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is [Liberty University].
I think Trump would say for Pelosi to take a hike!
Two Corinthians were sitting at a bar. And one of them . . .
Does a believer in God have to know the versus of the bible?
More importantly, can an individual who has never read the bible be a believer in God?
No, you were right the first time - Our laws are based upon the Bible - As a matter of precedence, at the founding of this country, going forward into the 19th century, The Protestant Bible, and the English Common Law (as colored by the Protestant Bible) are the sound basis of our system. Not just the 10 commandments, held in a vacuum.
Otherwise, anything goes,
no, not exactly.
but, the main purpose of government is to govern - not preach. I love the fact that we have the 1st Amendment and freedom of religion. However, it is still a separate entity according to the Bible.
Agreed, but the action of governance is by the writing of laws - Those laws are to conform to precedent, and the precedent is the Bible. To elect a man who is ignorant thereof is purely folly. There can be no separation of church and state, because there can be no separation between ethics and law. While they are certainly separate spheres, they cannot be but by juxtaposition - not opposition.
No, a believer doesn’t have to know Bible verses. However, doing so will be of great comfort to him and arm him sufficiently to do battle in this world.
Yes, a man can believe in the Lord and never read the Bible. However, reading it will strengthen his faith and be a source of great comfort and knowledge to him.
What does that even mean? I have no idea what you are trying to say. You accused me of calling you a liberal. I asked where I said that... Start from there.
I’m not an ayatollah of any sort. A PITA, maybe.
The Spirit of the Lord IS the WHOLE BALLGAME!
Regardless of Trump or his motivations or ignorance... When Biblical references are cited in the public sphere, it is not the speaker who speaks, but the Spirit of God.
2 Corinthians 3:12-18; 4:1-4
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
This thread really sums up what Paul is describing. The veil is blocking the view to the plain meaning.
To see the glory of God it is necessary to have the unobstructed vision. The light that goes on in the eyes is evidence that the observer sees the fire, which is the Spirit. Otherwise it (the image of God) wouldn't be reflected in the eyes.
The properties of a soul are reflected in the eyes, as the eyes are the window to the soul.
A vision - a spiritual vision - is viewed through the lens of a material or spiritual parable. In this case, a simple game of ball. The *whole* ball game.
But the crowd tittered, and several of the students audibly corrected him, pointing out that Christians say “Second Corinthians,” not “Two Corinthians.”
bungle.
VERB
1.carry out (a task) clumsily or incompetently, leading to failure or an unsatisfactory outcome:
It wasn't Trump who bungled.
You are absolutely correct. I have heard the numbered epistles referred to by public readers at Masses I've attended as "One Corinthians" or "Two Timothy", (etc.) probably thousands of times over the years (as a sort of shorthand reference many Catholics use for epistle number designations), just like they might just say "one-to-three", instead of "verses one-to-three", or "letter" instead of "epistle". Like you stated, it most certainly is not a big deal.
And yet, you show a naive or short sighted side your self. Arguably God did in fact want the church and the government to be one and the same. He set it up so that the priests did basically run the government. He always wanted to be the king over Israel but the people decided they needed a man thing that they could see. He stipulated that His people choose kings and leaders who knew the law. Which is to say the Bible. One of the chief duties of the king was to defend the faith. It has always been man, in my opinion, that wanted to separate God from government. And while I am not advocating for a theocracy, as we have it separated God even more from our government, how is that working out for us today?
What i find disingenuous is that Cruz’s father received a student visa to the United States, studied and graduated from an American university, then married an American citizen, went into business and THEN went to Canada to work for 8 years during which he applied for and received CANADIAN Citizenship. EIGHT YEARS. THEN he moved back to the U.S. but didn’t become a US Citizen until 2005.........how many years after he first entered the U.S.? So he has been an American citizen for TEN years as opposed to how many years he was a Cuban citizen and then a Canadian Citizen before he finally decided to become American. And where was “Ted” in 2005? Heidi Cruz joined Goldman Sachs in 2005. Amusing coincidence. In 2004 she left Washington because Ted was pursuing elective office in Texas. It seems to me to be very well orchestrated. Politica as usual.
What does that even mean? I have no idea what you are trying to say. You accused me of calling you a liberal. I asked where I said that... Start from there.
Ahh, NM. I see now. Misplaced pasted quote on my part - sorry for that.
My #349 should have quoted your #332:
So you’re calling me a liberal? Amusing that. Shows what little intelligence Cruz people have.
Whereupon I replied (with the faulty quote):
Where did I say that?
What does any of that have to do with the charge against Rafael's (and thereby Ted's) religious convictions?
The very tools of core leadership do not exist in Ted’s toolbox
EXACTLY!
Ted’s experience is in the limited, controlled, regulated world of the courtroom. He has no real world experience. Certainly no economic experience.
So who have you helped on a par with Donald’s assistance to people in need? Tell us about it, won’t you. Let’s see who has raised an upright family, never done drugs,never binged out on alcohol,never drowned his problems in nicotine and alcohol. Then let’s see who has the sainthood to cast the first stone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.