Pastor Cruz will define the Bible for us, no worries.
Liberals would love to run against the Canadian.
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.
Very good article.
Thank you, for posting this.
I like his answer...
We have been “turning the other cheek” to the terrorists too long.
P.S. Lonsberry is brilliant and should have been up there with Rush and Hannity and Levin- but the libtards nearly killed his career over some politically correct nonsense.
Food for thought. I agree with the author. Just like when Trump says if you punch him, he’ll punch back harder.
Some will say this is just evidence he’ll go off half-cocked on the world stage. He’s to deliberate for that to be accurate.
Liberals would love to run against the Canadian.
You never hear about Hitlery being asked these kinds of questions,
Mr Lonsberry needs to refresh himself on the meaning of “Occam’s razor”.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying. Trump followers are just like the people of Israel in 1st Samuel 8. Israel wanted a king and so do the King Trumpy Worshipers...(and for all the same reasons) Doesn’t matter that King Trumpy doesn’t know God. Israel didn’t care if Saul was a God fearing man or not. They just wanted a King to worship instead of God.
And I certainly do not want a preacher.
Stop with the hysterics.
It’s not hysterics. And yep.... King Trumpy worshipers want a king. A king to replace King Obammy. Someone who will decree in ways that they see fit.
It never ceases to amaze me how the self-professed Biblical experts insist that their interpretations, such as Eye for an Eye, are correct and that some lay person’s meaning is completely wrong. It’s rather arrogant in my opinion.
The point of most any common phrase, Bible originated or not, is to convey points that many automatically can agree with at some level. So what if Trump’s usage technically doesn’t comport with some “self-appointed scholar’s” standard. Cannot they understand the simple concept of “Tit for Tat?”
Good grief....
Exactly what I was talking about, expert.
Says the person cheering for tyrannical party tactics because it gets King Cruz in.
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.
Moron.
Do you really chose to live by “an eye for an eye” instead of by grace and forgiveness? Do you really choose living by “the law” instead of God’s grace and forgiveness? Seriously?
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. Mt. 5:39
To be slapped on the right check is a Jewish idiom (Matthew’s is “the Jewish” Gospel). To be slapped on the right check is to be slapped with the other person’s left hand. It means to be insulted. Jesus says let insults go. “Turn the other check.” See if you are then slapped with the right hand, which would be an actual harm. THEN, the law “eye for eye” kicks in.
Jesus said he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill or be the end of the law. It would be good to know the cultural context of what Jesus said. This would help many people who think there’s a dichotomy between common sense and following Jesus.
There it is. The righteous indignation of a puff adder being disturbed in its nest. I mentioned no laws - why do you imply that’s my dependence? Why do you automatically condemn someone for who might consider a universal common meaning, unrelated to your Biblical Theology, of the phrase. I even provided a corollary for it, Tit-for-tat, but your sensibilities to the Bible only allow for the “correct” interpretation. Arrogance.
An eye for an eye IS “the law”. It’s part of “the law”.
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.