Posted on 10/25/2015 2:48:36 PM PDT by conservativejoy
El Trumpo continued his attack on Ben Carson for his taking the lead in the Iowa polls while he joined CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
He tried to explain that he didn’t intend his comments about Carson’s faith as an insult, but rather that he just didn’t know anything about the denomination. Some have said that it’s smart of his bringing up the subject as it’ll cause some doubt among Evangelicals in Iowa.
He also said that his campaign “completely disavowed” superPACs after a pro-Trump superPAC was closed down when the Washington Post found questionable ties to the Trump campaign.
Interview at Link
Interesting stuff!
Many years ago I used to enjoy listening to the “Bible Answerman” radio program talk about Christian heresies.
I could provide links from SDA sites, Christian sites, and even Ex Adventists sites, but a search using your favorite search engine will provide all the info you could ever want.
They are cultists who go to Church on Saturday.
Also are behind Kellogs and their lousy cereals.
What do you think about the Pacifist teaching of SDA and their serving in noncombatant military roles? That for me is a major issue that conflicts with the role of Commander in Chief.
I’m a Trump supporter not a walker supporter, but I’m pretty sure Nixon was a Quaker and they are pacifists as well.
Nixon was not a practicing Quaker. Have you ever heard the constant barrage of profanity used by Nixon in any of his taped exchanges?
Nixon was a Quaker. He was also a known Poker Shark — having funded some of his earliest campaigns with poker winnings.
He also was a day laborer in the farm fields in California at an early age with his family.
Was he a practicing Quaker? Probably not, but spiritually, probably.
A lot of people don’t know much about 7th Day Adventists, Mormonism and other denomniations.
Kellogg had been disfellowshipped because he became a pagan.
Who Is Michael the Archangel?
THE spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In the book of Daniel, Michael is battling wicked angels; in the letter of Jude, he is disputing with Satan; and in Revelation, he is waging war with the Devil and his demons. By defending Jehovah’s rulership and fighting God’s enemies, Michael lives up to the meaning of his name—“Who Is Like God?” But who is Michael?
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion.
Archangel. God’s Word refers to Michael “the archangel.” (Jude 9) This term means “chief angel.” Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term “archangel” occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.
Army Leader. The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon . . . and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.
That's pretty odd....and, in my opinion, totally unexecptal...
Probably amongst the typical HC's.......
Simple. Assign the pacifists to the Pacific Theater ;-)
Any thoughts on this teaching being a conflict for a Commander in Chief?
Except for the fact that Jesus isn’t an angel
On a serious note, since you asked, I think an intellectually honest person who espoused a creed of pacifism would not seek the office of CinC of the military. If I am correct about that, one must conclude that the pacifist is either being dishonest about his faith, or his willingness to fully execute the duties of the office, both of which I find troubling.
After listening to the video, I have to agree Trump was saying he didn’t know about Carson’s religion....I don’t know about it either, except what I have heard, which isn’t good...but that’s what I have heard...
I did get the joke, I was just very interested to know what you thought about the C of C issue. Thanks for your comments. I share your concern.
Adventists believe that only 144,000 people (who just happen to be adventists) will get to heaven
http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/the-144000-who-really-are-they
Adventists don’t celebrate Christmas
http://www.adventist.org.au/celebrating-christmas
I think you may be referring to Jehovah’s Witness on those two doctrines. But JW’s and SDA’s do both believe Jesus is the Archangel Michael. They also both taught that Jesus has already returned to earth (invisibly of course). They had to come up with some explanation for their false prophecies not coming true. I believe the SDA predicted Christ’s return in the 1800’s and the JW’s in 1914.
I had to do some quick research. So my opinions on their pacifism are more impressions than well studied analysis. I was familiar with Mrs. White’s positions, but not those of the modern church.
It seems the church’s current stance is to encourage peace and pacifism, but it does not bar those who choose combatant roles from membership. They do, as an organization, support member draftees asserting conscientious objection based on AD A faith, and resultant assignment to noncombatant roles.
I do find their toolkit for students considering military service problematic, but that is because I see military service as an honor and a calling, not as a job in the common use of the phrase. As a body, they seem to actively discourage military service, and begrudgingly accept that some of their members may feel such a calling.
http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae200365051612.pdf
My biggest concern is not a CIC who through faith considers military action a last resort, that should be the position of any CIC, of any faith.
My biggest concern is rather a CIC who is so opposed to armed conflict that a necessary decision is delayed, and thereby causes a loss of advantage, or worse a loss at the tactical theater level, or further worse, a loss that affects the strategic balance.
I also believe the CIC is be default, the recruiter in chief, affecting both directly and indirectly the population, composition, and careers of our service members.
These are the kinds of concerns and implied questions I feel should be answered by any candidate for President. The position of the SDA church doesn’t dictate that Dr. Carson toe the line without exception.
I cannot claim to be an unbiased observer, and will make no such claim. Dr. Carson may have inadvertently opened himself to religious questions with his publicly stated concerns about whether a Muslim was supportable for the Presidency.
While I would welcome an understanding of where he draws the line between personal faith and public service, I would never ask or require anyone to become a Pelosi Catholic, or a Ried Mormon, effectively acting against the tenets of their professed faith while in office.
Personally I do not consider membership in any religion as a bar to public service. However, reality says that there are many with whom I will disagree significantly and seriously on matters of public policy, and that in the end those differences may at times have roots in differences of faith. To claim otherwise would be to lie for the sake of sounding politically righteous.
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.