Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'donald trump'.
Found 3 results
I recently had a post taken down. The reason stated was that I was "speaking evil of a leader." In point of fact, I had posted asking for scriptural reasons why a current leader could not be the Antichrist (I confessed that I believed him to be.) No proof of a lack of biblical qualification was offered that this leader could "not" be whom I claimed he was. A few supported me. Yet, one individual stated that Scripture commands us to respect those in authority -- something I was evidently violating. I was simply wrong "in principle" because I'm not "allowed" to do that. He went so far as to quote from the TOS: "Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17)" If the reason for the censor is a violation of the TOS, may I just point out that I did not make a disrespectful or threatening "comment" about this world leader, as the rules specifically state. NOT ONE. I simply expressed a "belief" about him, i.e. that he was the Antichrist. To my recollection, I made no offensive or disparaging comments about him. My tone was very serious and weighty, for the most part. A Christian forum's "terms of service" should be grounded in Scripture and administered consistently and not hypocritically. I would like to examine 1 Peter 2:13-17, to see what it says, what it doesn't, and what, if any, historical particulars might influence the application of the passage. "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13-17) The TOS interprets this verse to mean Christians do not have the right to express an opinion on the forum that may be construed as "disrespectful" towards one in authority. My first thought is that this sounds profoundly un-American. This kind of thought control seems more akin to China than the U.S. Apparently, the implication is this: Since my statement is dishonoring to our leader and the Bible says "Honor the king" ; therefore I'm in sin. But is that really what this passage says? Not at all. Historical-grammatical interpretation demands that we examine each and every text within its proper "context," both in terms of its historical background and internal grammar. This passage above lists two groups: 1.) evil-doers 2.) do-gooders Yes, we are to submit to and honor those in authority. That is not in question. But what is the context of that submission? What is this honor and what does it look like? Is it talking about our theological opinions of a person or even an opinion of a leader's character? Where does it say that in the text? I neither see it in that passage, nor in the Romans 13 passage -- it's not there. Who are these people that do not "honor the king?" Are they Christians with an opinion? We don't have to guess. The text tells us. THEY ARE LAW BREAKERS -- EVIL DOERS. We honor the king by living in accordance to the law of the land. THAT is what the text says. Verse 14 says that authority is sent by God "to punish those who do evil." Verse 16 says, "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." Clearly, the focus of 1 Peter 2 is living "lawfully" (rightly) in society as a testimony in order to silence men who would unrighteously judge Christ's Church (Christians). It is a call to "live within the law;" to "live beyond reproof". It is not some mystical power or honor given to a King, but rather an admonishment to live in accordance to the ordinances of civil law. But doesn't verse 17 say "Honor the Emperor (king)?" Yes -- but it also says, "Honor everyone." So, if we cannot call a spade a spade in regards to a king, then contextually, we can never call ANYONE an evil or corrupt or bad person. Charles Manson, Anton Lavey, and Hitler may have done some bad things, but we cannot call them evil, bad or wicked people. This kind of reasoning is absurd and not supported by either passage. After the post was taken down, I was told: "In the 1st century -- Nero was a type of AC and he persecuted believers in the worst way possible -- and yet you don't read so much about him in the Church Fathers." This is where the historical context must be closely considered. In the 1st century, an unsavory statement written about the Caesar was considered a crime of treason and punishable by death. Of course they didn't write negative statements regarding his character; not if they valued their life. If you wrote anything disparaging to the emperor, you were, in fact, a law breaker. (In America, we have something called the 1st Amendment which safeguards, in particular, religious free speech.) Even so, the apostle John boldly wrote that: "now many antichrists have come." (1 John 2:18), He did not cower to call a spade a spade. And neither do I. There does appear to be a degree of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worse when it comes to the enforcement of this supposed biblical principle. I'll spare you the direct quotes in lieu of suggesting that a mere search for the word, "OBAMA", in this forum will provide a SWATH of comparisons of him to the beast. The Pope also garners a lot of insults. I find it fascinating that my post was removed while those posts were allowed to stay. Recall also that my post was just asking folks to refute my conclusions. The posts on Obama and others were actually providing evidence from Scripture that they were indeed antichrists. According to the administrator (who was very nice, I might add), the post was about to be automatically pulled because of the amount of complaints. Is it just possible that when it comes to a Leftist like Obama, we are quick to "tolerate" moral criticism. Yet, when it comes to someone on our side, well...that's seen as "talking evil" about them. Let me clear up something. This is not "sport" for me. I was not looking for the Antichrist. I have never considered ANYONE previously as a contender - no one. I am not an "end of the world" fanatic or some conspiracy loon. I don't attend prophecy conferences. In fact, I haven't bought a prophecy book in over 20 years. That said, on March 25, 2016 I was t-boned out of nowhere by the Holy Spirit. I sat down at a computer and typed FURIOUSLY for 3 1/2 months with just my index fingers. When I was done, I had what I believe to be the most exhaustive book ever written on the Antichrist. I pulled from nearly 1000 Scripture verses. I am not a "charismatic" but I have seen the power of God -- marvelous things. When I wrote that book, I knew with certainty that a particular man was going to be elected, not once, but twice. And I wrote about it. I repeat, this is not a game. Trust me when I say that my book is not some inane adding up of a person's name to get 666. Recall, the reason for the post's delete was because I was deemed "speaking evil of a leader." But what is speaking evil of someone? This link may help: https://biblehub.com/topical/e/evil-speaking.htm Is it not meant to do them harm? -- usually through some kind of slander? Again, I was challenging people to dismiss my views from Scripture. Instead, what I got was, "You're wrong ." I ask, "Why am I wrong?" Answer: "Because you talked evil." Why do you say I was talking evil? Answer: "Because you were wrong." But fact is, I'm only "wrong" if I'm "wrong." In other words, if I'm wrong as in incorrect, then yes, I've committed a serious wrong. But if I'm right, now what? I am certain I am right and have good reason for that certainty. We are to honor all people, including the king, that we may live in peace. This is practical advice for our comfort -- "so that you may live peaceably." That said, there are times in history when men must forgo comfort to speak up against evil and the men behind it. If the Peter passage implies that men should just shut up and never point the finger towards unrighteous leaders, how do we explain the great prophets, judges and writers in the Bible that spoke up against evil rulers? The Bible is chalked full of them, from Moses, down through the prophets, to John the Baptist, forward to such men as the Apostles who said, "We must obey God rather than men." How about Nathan pointing his finger at David saying, "YOU ARE THE MAN!" Psalm 26:5 says, "I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." We are to honor men. But we are also to hate evil. Ephesians 5:11 says, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Yes, we are called to love our enemies. But the Bible does not say, "Do not consider them your enemies." Someone asked me if I respected this leader (the subject of my deleted post.) My response was, "I would bet that I have a deeper, more profound respect for him than you do." I know who he is and what he'll do. I can have a respect for greatness, whether it be good or evil. I respect the man. I hate the monster, especially the monster that he'll become. What if I'm wrong? Well, for starters, I stand in good company. In fact, the great men of the faith, from the 1st century, through to the Reformation all had their designated, antichrists. Martin Luther, John Calvin all the way through to people like Jonathan Edwards considered the Pope to be the Antichrist. I have a copy of a Geneva Bible. The marginal notation mentions the antichrist of popery. They didn't refer to him as a type, but called him the Antichrist. Recall, the apostle John said there were antichrists in his day. Even today, sermons are preached calling out the evils of anti-Christian dictators. Some have gone as far as to take up arms to stand up against evil leaders. (I have never called for this.) Did our founding fathers commit evil against King George? Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer commit evil in standing with Christians in Germany to try to take down Hitler? Some may argue that my present-day antichrist has yet to commit evil acts. My response would be this: 1.) I could argue that he has committed evil. 2.) Because I am certain of this man's role, I know the evil he will commit. In God's eyes (assuming I am correct), he's already guilty of it. The point I want to make is this: The Bible lays out a Christian standard of living and conduct. But the Antichrist is unique. He is the penultimate embodiment of all the previous wicked leaders in history. He is evil manifest. When it comes to the Antichrist, even the admonitions to honor the ruler will go out the window at some point. I am not saying we've arrived there yet. If claiming someone is the Antichrist amounts to "speaking evil,", what about those who resist him during the tribulation? If they reject the mark, they are rejecting the man. Won't they be speaking evil of him by default? Again, speaking evil has at its center: FALSEHOOD. They won't be speaking evil because they will be speaking truth. And truth is never evil - that is unless it is being spoken for sordid reason e.g. for money, power or slander. I am solidly convinced that I AM speaking the truth. I am not doing this to hurt the man. My Lord, in my opinion, he's invincible until Christ returns. And from what I know of him, I think he would rather enjoy being called the first dictator of the world, evil or not. Bottom line -- I see NO biblical justification to pull my post. -- I see a different standard whether the object of our critique represents the political Right versus the Left. -- I am not an evil doer (law breaker). -- I am certain my conclusion is true and of the Lord. -- I will continue to attempt to post on here, as long as the Lord permits. -- I am convinced that those who mock my conclusion will soon mock no more. 1 Peter 2:15 "For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." That is what I believe I have done and will continue to do. In my next post -- the profile of a man.
Dear Lord, in Jesus Christ's name I pray. Welcome Holy Spirit, embody this nation, government and military. God bless Donald Trump, keep him protected, helped and leading your nation strong and free. God bless Justin Trudeau, bend his will to yours, humble him and teach him what he needs to know of You. Thank you Lord for the peace talks in Korea! This is an appreciated answer to so many pleading prayers! We pray for the same peace and understanding in Cameroon, please have mercy and save its people. Please forgive us of all our sins. Especially excuse evil where we oppose, mock and vilify You. Please Lord, we know not what we do. Bless and revive us Lord, thy kingdom come. Put us through the painful process of cleansing this world, nation, generation and church of backsliding, sleepiness, enemies within, blasphemy, watering down of God's truth, word and law. Prune and throw such chaff into the lake of fire. Have us accept and cherish your free gift of salvation and eternal life immediately through your Son's sacrifice in place of our sin debt. May we all pray for this in our life now! Heal, restore and revive your body of Christ saved to do good works in the Lord. May we be light, salt and disciples to this desperate world. Hallelujah, he is risen, he is risen indeed! I pray this sincerely for all lost, enemies and loved ones in Jesus Christ's name, amen! GregoryB
Four years ago, Iranian-American Christian pastor Saeed Abedini was unfairly detained in Iran and tossed into Evin Prison, where he remained until Jan. 16 of this year, when the rogue regime released him and other hostages in exchange for ransom reportedly paid by the U.S. government. On Oct 21., Abedini posted an update on his Facebook page announcing that he had just voted for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump — and that, more importantly, Trump had donated $10,000 to his family while he was locked up in Iran. “I am finally free in a free country,” he wrote. “Last year on the same day I was sick and in chains for Christ, and now I can vote to choose my next president. Full story here