The 2016 United States Presidential Election

Just because I'm for Trump in this election doesn't mean I'm happy with everything about him. He could yet do things that would turn me against him.There are probably some good applications of eminent domain but I don't know what they are. But why not address the topic? Is putting refugees in someone's property against his will a good application of eminent domain?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Absolutely not. That is a total perversion of Jesus' teaching. He does not advocate stealing from a person to give to others, he advocates voluntary giving and never suggests we should be forced to it. The hotel owner is a human being too, he's your neighbor too, and he is being evilly mistreated. There is also no hint that an entire nation is obligated to make room for people who might be a threat to its wellbeing. The idea is ludicrous and evil. What about loving your neighbor who lives next door? What if by helping your neighbor in the refugee camp you threaten the wellbeing of your neighbor next door? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You all seem to be having a problem with the question of whom Jesus is addressing. He's addressing YOU. YOU are to take care of your neighbor. YOU are not to tell SOMEBODY ELSE to take care of their neighbor and YOU are not to send the police to MAKE them take care of their neighbor. YOU are to do whatever YOU can do, CHEERFULLY, as God also says He loves a cheerful giver, but instead you are for forcing a man to do something he clearly does not want to do.Yes, in this case the man had originally volunteered his hotel but then he changed his mind because he wasn't GIVING it, he wanted to be paid for its use and then wasn't happy with the amount he was going to get. You have no right to tell him what to do or how to feel about it.And when you do help your neighbor, choosing to help one neighbor over another, to bring in people who hate your immediate neighbor, is in my opinion criminal in*sanity.Invoking Jesus as commanding such in*sanity is some kind of blasphemy.What do you think about the American Constitutional protection against being forced to put up soldiers in your home? That's what England did to the early colonists, so they had to forbid it legally.Also, in the Bible when strangers were incorporated into ancient Israel they were required to learn and accept the religion of Israel. But you all apparently think it's OK for Muslims whose beliefs are absolutely alien to the West and subversive of our beliefs, not to have to assimilate and adapt. All over Europe there are "no-go" zones where hostile Muslims keep out the police and incubate their hatred in their own isolated communities. So what happens? You get women raped in Sweden, you get cars torched in Marseille and people shot to death in a dance hall and the oiffice of a magazine, but nobody suggests stopping the reason for it. Wow, the world has gone mad. In America this guy stabs a bunch of people in Ohio and it's just brushed off. Like the other incidents by Muslims. Nobody will face the fact that Muslims are IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN against Amerca and the West at large. It can only get worse as their humbers increase, but nobody cares about US, just about them. This should be the definition of in*sanity. CRIMINAL.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? After four EvC members show that they clearly justify forcing this old man to accept refugees against his will? NoNukes, Tanypteryx, jar and Asgara. Only Caffeine said otherwise. I myself read this as the Trend itself. EvC is a remarkable representation of the Leftist views that are forcing refugees on the citizens of all those European countries, and want to see it in America too, calling us all racists and xenophobes who think it is a dangerous idea, and even invoking Jesus against us. The opinions of members of EvC can probably be counted on to reflect the attitudes of Leftists in Europe too.You would prefer to see the police action against the hotel ownert as an isolated mistake, and I can hope you are right, but nevertheless I suspect this is the spearpoint of a trend that would easily escalate if there is no action taken against it. And caffeine is no doubt right, the citizens of the countries involved may rise up, there could be a civil war. I personally think the authoritarian fascist trend is going to come from the Left this time, to put down any such uprising, because it's the Left that is promoting One World Government, open borders, the dissolution of sovereign states, and the overwhelming of the West by Muslims whose ultimate agenda is worldwide Kalifa even if many of them have no clue how they are being manipulated to that end. It's the Left in the US that keeps supporting the idea of One World government, and EvC is again a representative of that opinion; it's the conservatives who object to it.. The powers behind all these big movements probably don't care who starts the war, they'll be happy to see war tear apart the West whoever takes the bait and whoever is the strongest.abe: Let me add this concern of my own that has been percolating in the back of my head since I heard Trump's recent speech about America First and so on. At one point he tossed in a short phrase about how Globalism is a good thing but... it went by so fast you could have missed it, and I haven't seen anybody comment on it yet, not that I keep up with all the news. It hit me as a possible sign to globalists that in spite of all his wonderful freedom-loving sovereign-nation rhetoric he may really be working for them. That would be very jesuitical of him to come out totally as one thing while serving another purpose in reality. Of course I don't want to think of him as duplicitous and jesuitical, but that one short statement really startled me. I guess I'll have to write a blog post about it.ABE: I listened to the first part of the speech again and what he actually said was "Global is wonderful but..." "Global" isn't "globalISM" but it still bothers me and I'm going to write a blog post about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Exactly as I said: you justify forcing the man to give up his hotel against his will.

Typical obfuscating pedantry plus typical accusatory ad hominem. Let me rephrase:Exactly as I said, you justify forcing the man to give up his hotel to the state to use against his will.ABE: No, let me try one more time:Exactly as I said, you justify forcing the man to let the state use his hotel against his will.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That bothered me too, that Trump rejects the standard explanation of the downing of the twin towers, as I've considered the "truthers" to be total nuts questioning that.But I hadn't heard his particular take on it before: how could a plane just slice through those vertical steel frames that girded the outside of the entire building, segments of which we can see standing eerily in the wreckage afterward? Wouldn't the wings of the plane just be sheared off by the collision? In fact wouldn't the metal body of the whole plane just break up? Instead it cut right through the skin of the building like butter. I don't see how bombs could have made that possible either though. And maybe just the speed of the plane is enough to account for it?I know the "bomb" sounds so many use for evidence against the standard explanation were clearly established to be the sound of bodies of people jumping from the burning part of the buildings hitting the ground outside the lobby, that are heard in the film that was made of the firefighter response to the disaster. Anyway, Trump's view is one I hadn't heard before, and I'm not ready to dismiss it out of hand. There are plots within plots within plots going on these days, anything is possible.

You don't believe those exit polls do you? Polls galore showed Hillary was going to win before the election. It's all rigged.

You are actually going to push your ridiculous analogy then?Leaving parts of your field unharvested so that poor people can glean from them enough to eat is a very specific command to LAND OWNERS. It is illustrated in action in the Book of Ruth where she comes to glean at the edges of the land owned by Boaz, so that she and her mother-in-law Naomi can eat. This is not a general command to provide for your neighbor, it is a command to simply leave something for the poor from your crops. And again it is a direct command to the land owner to act on from his own free will, it is not something we are to force on someone. It's between the land owner and God, and if he commits sin in not doing it God will punish him, there is nothing that says YOU can dictate any of this. In any case, there is absolutely no comparison with a hotel owner. What could he leave of his "land" for others to "glean from?" {abe: Oh, perhaps he could keep a small room in the basement for someone who can't afford a regular room? That is, "gleaning" certainly doesn't imply giving your whole field to the poor.) The command to him would be more along the lines of giving donations from his earnings to the cause of the poor. There is nothing implied that requires him to share his property. That's absurd.The second of the two great commandments, in which are contained "all the law and the prophets," to love God being the first, is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.HOW you are to love your neighbor is actually spelled out in the second table of the Ten Commandments from which this second commandment is abstracted: that is, you love your neighbor by observing the sabbath rest, by honoring "parents," which includes all legitimate authorities, by not stealing, murdering, lying, committing adultery or coveting the possessions of your neighbor. I suggest that all you twisters of the Biblical commands are violating the tenth of the ten commandments by coveting the property of the hotel owner for purposes YOU define. The Bible says no such thing. Loving your neighbor is also spelled out in positive terms in many of the examples given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as well as in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. NONE of it even remotely implies that you -- let alone the government -- are to forcibly make use of another person's property for ANY reason whatever.Of course the commandments are not voluntary for those to whom they are addressed. But you are trying to force them on people who for all you know already fulfill the commandment according to their means and according to common sense. The hotel owner COULD decide to provide housing for refugees to fulfill the commandment, but he is under absolutely no obligation to do so. He may contribute generously to funds for the poor for all you know, and he probably doesn't steal, murder, lie, commit adultery or covet from his poor neighbors. Or he may not obey the commandment at all and is in sin before God. In any case, YOU have no right to tell him how to respond to God.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thoroughly answered all your wrongheaded claims. Go read iit again. You are making up pure garbage. I'm talking about making SOMEBODY ELSE obey the commandments [I removed my intemperate outburst, though your accusations are obnoxious and incendiary. Slandering a fellow believer is certainly not obeying any of Jesus' commands.]I thought of two more things I wanted to say before you made the latest post.One: Ananias and Sapphira who withheld some of the proceeds from the sale of their property from the disciples' fund, lied about it when they didn't have any reason to, since as the disciples said, they had the full right to use their property however they wanted to, to give or withhold whatever amount they chose. Instead they pretended to give it all when they gave only part of it. The point is this idea that the hotel owner had some kind of obligation to provide for the refugees is wrong wrong wrong. And again you have no idea what he may already do to obey the commandment. And you also have no idea whether he himself would suffer severely financially if he did what you self-appointed judges of his conscience want him to do, What a bunch of Pharisees you all are.And the other thing was that Jesus tells us if someone steals our coat to also give them our cloak. He doesn't tell us that we are to make someone else give up their cloak, which is what you all are doing.As usual I'm sorry I got myself trapped into any discussion at EvCEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing I said "limited "charity. In pointing out that the Shalt Nots of the the Ten Commandments are loving your neighbor I was giving the correct basic understanding that everybody ignores, not limiting anything. I went on to mention the other places in the Bible where the commandment is expanded. Your list is part of it, but how dare you accuse anyone of disobeying it. Which is certainly expressed in the Shalt Nots. Not LIMITED to them but expressed in them. This means fellow believers. But even if it did not, you are free to go to the refugees in their camps and help them in many ways, and many people do that. Everything from food and shelter to sanitation to medical help to necessary supplies. Or, why not go to China where there are lots of suffering people, particularly Christians? Or put in time at the soup kitchen at the mission. These things are up to the individual conscience, including your own; other people's consciences are none of your business. Loving one another specifically means brothers and sisters IN CHRIST. The way you attack fellow believers for not living up to YOUR mistaken understanding of the commandments is not loving them. Christians are known for being big givers, NN, stop being a Pharisee. How are the refugees your "friend?" And why do you get to dictate how a person is to be kind to anyone anyway? Take it to heart and leave everybody else to take it to heart as they will.

"Friend" is not the word Jesus used in the story of the good Samaritan. It certainly does not describe Muslim refugees. Helping Muslim refugees by bringing them into another culture is being an agent of violence, rape andmurder and subjugation of that culture. That's not charity and Jesus would not require it of anybody. And in fact that would be hating your neighbor, the neighbor who is a citizen of the culture you are threatening by bringing in Muslims.Islam is not just another religion, it's a totalitarian ideology that will not adapt to different cultures or respect other religions who to them are all "infidels." They will pretend anything, however, when they are not in the position of power, they are willing to lie to infidels, willing to make false treaties and contracts with the infidel they will later break, because service to "Allah" is above all relationships with infidels. Using the meaning of loving your neighbor in the sense of the Shalt Nots or any other sense, Islam has no such moral standard. And they are willing to wait for the opportunity to dominate the infidels as long as they must, pretending they have no such intention. Those who are genuinely moderate are simply not true followers of their religion, but that could change at any time. They are ticking time bombs. Read the book "Philistine" by Ramon Bennett where he quotes Muslim leaders on their strategy.If you want to help the refugees help them in a way that doesn't require committing suicide or murder or other violence, and how dare you suggest anyone who knows the reality of Islam is guilty of refusing to love our neighbor if we are against bringing them into a culture they despise. We love our neighbor by not subjecting those already here to such a danger.Help settle the refugees in a Muslim nation. Help them in the refugee camp. Take the gospel of Jesus Christ to them; take them Bibles. THAT would be genuinely loving them.After you've hated your citizen neighbor by subjecting them to such dangers and brought them in anyway, then make laws against Sharia, make laws against allowing them to create "no-go" zones, make laws against the hijab and against all the alien facets of their totalitarian ideology that is at odds with our culture. That would be loving them and it would be loving your neighbor both refugee and citizen. Otherwise you are dangerously deluded and putting the nation in danger.But the main topic is whether a government has the right to force anyone, the example being the hotel owner, to use his hotel for any purpose against his will, such as to accommodate refugees no matter who the refugees are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Who is free to move back where?Let me quess: You are actually arguing that because of the crusades we should let Muslims into the country to rape, riot, burn cars and murder us? And eventually take over the country for Allah?Also, the Crusades were a papal operation, nothing to do with the genuine Christianity which founded this country.In any case it's you who need the lesson. I recommend the book I mentioned, "Philistine" by Ramon Bennett. He quotes Muslim leaders revealing the real agenda of Islam. The fact that some Muslims have adapted and not become radicalized is a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact that Islam itself is a totalitarian ideology that refuses to adapt or respect other religions who are all "infidels." There is no way of knowing, either, whether apparently adapted Muslims have really adapted or are "sleepers," who would become jihadists once there are enough of them to make it effective. I'd only be reassured if they renounced Islam altogether.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I said, the command to love your neighbor does not mean committing suicide in the process or hating the neighbors who would be put at risk. Yes I vilify the entire ideology of Islam, it's a satanic murderous totalitarian ideology. And yes, bringing the people the gospel would be truly loving them. Soon as you bleeding heart suicidal maniacs acknowledge that there could be GOOD reason in the case of Islam to be wary of Muslim refugees, then we can start talking about real ways of helping them. As long as you are plotting murder and subjugation of American citizens, however naively, there is nothing to discuss.Oh, about building a wall. You think Jesus is for illegal invasion of another nation?: What would make you think that? I really think all you opposers of protecting American laws and sovereignty should move to Mexico and help the people get their act together down there. I think Americans should do that anyway. Why are you sitting here in your comfy prosperous nation while all those people are suffering terrible poverty? Get off your butt and go help them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes Muslims live all over the world, it's part of the agenda of Kalifa, and if you pay attention you would see that there are lots of uprisings in various countries that are called "etbnic" that are really fomented by the Muslims. They don't YET commit all that violence here. So far just a few of them have jumped the gun and committed some murders. Wait until they have the population they have in France where they are torching the cars, and in Sweden where they are raping the women.It's really amazing to consider that what was once a reasonable objection to oppression has become the oppressor. Satan is so clever.