Posted on 04/18/2016 6:26:47 AM PDT by shortstop
He was wrong on the theology.
But he’s not running for pastor in chief. He’s running for commander in chief.
And if you’re eight months away from possibly swearing in as president, maybe you weigh and calculate your answers in a way not obvious to the rest of us.
I’m talking about Donald Trump and the answer to a question I asked him last week. In the run up to the New York presidential primary, he called in to WSYR radio in Syracuse and I got to speak to him for a few minutes. I asked him several things over a variety of subjects.
One of those things was, basically, “What’s your favorite Bible verse?”
His answer ambled a bit. It began and ended with praise for the Bible, but in the middle he expressed some admiration for “An eye for an eye.”
I cringed when he said it. So did others. The next day Buzzfeed reported the answer, and that led to a media flurry that culminated with reporting on Fox and ABC.
Most of the reporting pointed out that that verse – “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” – is known by most folks because Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount specifically repudiated it. He called his followers to a higher standard, and famously commanded them to turn the other cheek.
The answer seemed to bear out the perception that Donald Trump’s knowledge of the Bible and traditional Christianity are sparse.
I was embarrassed by the attention the answer drew. Small-time reporters – of which I am one – sometimes pathetically try to draw attention to themselves by asking some trick question of prominent people. I don’t believe in that. Interviews are not some contest between me and the guest, they are opportunities for listeners to hear directly from candidates and others. The questioner is merely a facilitator. I was grateful for Donald Trump’s time, and though my questions were rigorous, they were not gotchas.
But this one ended up being played like a gotcha.
Though that carries with it an assumption that may not be correct. Namely, that Donald Trump is so dense that he doesn’t even know how to answer a simple Bible question.
One of the ironies of Donald Trump is that he is either really smart or really dumb, and you’re never really sure which one it is. There is something inscrutable about him and his abilities. Sometimes I wonder if that is on purpose. I wonder if his years of business and negotiations have led him to adapt a non-threatening posture, coming off like a potential goof, in order to gain an advantage.
For example, though the “Eye for an eye” quote is being cited as proof of Trump being a blockhead, there is very little else in the interview that would support that conclusion. In fact, he handled the rest of the conversation with a purposeful, intelligent, skilled focus.
He spoke to me in a classic technique reminiscent of Carnegie and Covey graduates – he used my name, he repeatedly tied his priorities with mine, and he used a courteous, gracious and collegial tone. Further, he turned almost all of my questions back to his specific campaign points for upstate New York. He was always on point, he was always in command, he was always delivering message.
So why do we presume he wasn’t doing that when he said, “An eye for an eye?”
Why do we presume that he gave that answer for evangelicals in the heartland?
Why couldn’t he have given that answer to send a message not to domestic voters but to international adversaries?
What if that wasn’t for the pastor, but was for Putin?
What if Donald Trump believes that next year this time he will be president of the United States and responsible for the security of this country? What if he, in that crazy-like-a-fox way that he seems sometimes to have, threw that answer out there to communicate to our adversaries the policy of his administration?
What if he was telling Putin or the Chinese or the Iranians or the Cubans or the jihadis that on Inauguration Day America was going to grow a pair?
I’m a little embarrassed that my question ended up in the online news feeds.
But I’m proud that it probably ended up in Trump dossiers compiled by foreign intelligence agencies.
I want them to know that the man apt to be the next president of the United States believes in “An eye for an eye.”
Or, in the new American translation, “You eff with us, and we’ll eff with you.”
Because that attitude, understood by the bad guys, will help keep them on their side of the line. It will keep America and the world safer. It will end a season of American weakness and capitulation – the twin inviters of attack. It sends the message that the next president will fight for America, if need be.
Trump’s answer was bad theology, but it was good statesmanship.
He’s not running to save your soul, he’s running to save your country.
Does the Lord’s teaching apply to civil authorities?
I always thought that “eye for and eye” was for justice systems. That citizens are not to apply this to personal interactions.
I’m just asking. It came up recently between my wife and I and I felt lacking in understanding.
And I didn’t condemn you... I asked you a simple question... would you rather live by the law or by grace and forgiveness?
Your law or Caesar’s Law?
The author did a great job with his article.
If this had been Obama or Hildabeast the responses here would be totally different.
Trump is pandering, yes he does it. To suggests that he is so smart that he is sending a message to Putin is absurd. If you watch his speech patterns and arguing skills he is not an intellectual giant by any stretch of the imagination.
Trump may or may not be a Christian but since I don’t know him personally nor can I see into his heart I have no idea.
If he is a Christian I do know that he is not very disciplined or studied. His life clearly displayes this. For his sake I hope he is.
No need to blast me I will be voting for Trump enthusiastically if he is the nominee. I have said from the beginning I would support Trump, Cruz, or Carson and all of this campiagn rhetoric won’t change that. I am not tossed to and fro by every wind of change. I encourage Freepers to do the same.
The vitriol displayed on here for the last couple of months is rediculous. I know we have infiltrators on here but gee whiz aren’t we all actually on the same team with the same goal.
An Eye for an Eye was part of the jewish law. It was given to the jewish people through Moses. You’re correct. The people of the time (and some of the people of this time) took it to be part of interpersonal interaction.
Does it matter which law?
An ‘eye for an eye’ works for me.
Your entire response which you base on your Christianity was based on political motives. You use your interpretations of Trump’s words to condemn him, and in essence me for providing an inkling of some other possible good point or understandable interpretationabout what he said. Your tagline tells what you are. Don’t hide behind “all of Christendom” as an excuse for piety with which I’m not supposed to disagree.
See #28. I think I’m done with you.
Whatever.... What Trump demonstrated is that he is about 95% biblically illiterate. That’s my opinion. And yes... through out the history of Christendom it has been understood what Christ said about “an eye for an eye”.... But don’t trust what I’m telling you.... just read the rest of the new testament and see what you think. It is in the end your own choice to make.
Good read
Skeptical at first but got my attention
In actuality, stating "an eye for an eye" is actually an act of judicial prudence. The Bible is stating that if the crime results in a loss of an eye then the punishment can't be greater than the loss of an eye. Back in the day almost all violations of the law ended in a death sentence. For example, we get the term "Draconian" from the Athenian law giver Dracos who punished every violation of even the most minor law with a death sentence (was outside of the Bible but Dracos was not unique).
So I rebuke Bob Lonsberry's theological interpretation.
The self-assured arrogance is astounding. I’d suggest you explore the meaning of ‘bigot’ and then extrapolate that with a religious influence.
So yeah.... you must be right.
Again, your tag line proves your political motives, ‘Christendom’ aside.
Thomas Jefferson stated that the USA lives under the tradition of Anglo-Saxon common law that predates Christianity so I will go with living under Anglo-Saxon common law because Christianity is not a worldly system. His kingdom is not of this world.
Apparently he doesn't even live by "an eye for an eye" since he admits that he hits them back harder.
So much for philosophy class today. Have a great one!
So this is what my daughter laughingly does by texting me “kthxbai” after asking me to do something or saying something with which she knows I’ll disagree. We laugh about it and I sometimes even text that to her.
Basically, it means, “I said or did something you won’t agree to, but I’ve made my stand and I don’t need an answer...”
Guess what I want to text you.
Your cartoon assumes an equivalence between Islam and the Bible-based religions that doesn’t exist. One can be a Christian or a Jew and still support and defend a democratic republic, but the same cannot be said for being a Muslim. Such muddled thinking only goes to support the takeover of the country by totalitarians.
According to the article, Trump was asked about his favorite Bible verse. As I recall (please correct me if I am wrong) the Bible includes both the old and new testaments.
In any event, I agree with the author. Trump is not running to be America's Pastor in Chief. He is running to be the Commander in Chief. There's a difference.
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.