Bill Clinton's Reaction To Trump Bringing His Sex Victims to Debate
- Thread starter chootchooot
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Not at all (pertaining to God making them sin). It's a fact God made men attracted to women and women to men. The desire isn't the sin, it's the action. So to use "God, you gave us these desires" as a defense for acting on those desires is completely irrelevant... it's justification for a sin. There is no justification for it. To follow that up with an apology would lead many to think it wasn't sincere as there wasn't a complete ownership of the sin.
I am not arguing that it is or is not inexcusable. I am trying to tell you that justification is a synonym for defense. "There is no defense for it," is the same thing as "there is no justification". You are saying he is trying to justify his actions, but he is not trying to defend his actions...It may or may not be a valid defense, but it is still a defense.....
I was just trying to help you understand they are synonyms, so you can get your point across better.
I was just trying to help you understand they are synonyms, so you can get your point across better.
K
I said that earlier. I know they can be used interchangeably in this context.
As for my saying "he is not trying to defend his actions"... I don't believe I said that. If I did, copy and paste the post I made that said that. It would have been an error if I did. He is trying to defend his actions... he is trying to rationalize his actions... hence, I put he is trying to "rationalize/defend" in the post I quoted.
As for my saying "he is not trying to defend his actions"... I don't believe I said that. If I did, copy and paste the post I made that said that. It would have been an error if I did. He is trying to defend his actions... he is trying to rationalize his actions... hence, I put he is trying to "rationalize/defend" in the post I quoted.
"It isn't a defense" is the same thing....It Is a defense, just not a valid defense....
You are saying he is not trying to defend his actions whether you intend to or not....I come to this conclusion based on the definitions of words you used.
A) He is trying to defend his action
defend- using an argument to maintain innocence
He was trying to use an argument to maintain the innocence of his actions
B) It is not a defense
Defense- an argument used in vindication or trying to maintain innocence
It is not an argument used in trying to maintain innocence
C)"It is not an argument (noun-defense) used in trying to maintain his innocence, but he is using (verb-defend) an argument to maintain his innocence..."
Do you see what I am saying now? The word valid is needed, in order to get the meaning you want.....
You are saying he is not trying to defend his actions whether you intend to or not....I come to this conclusion based on the definitions of words you used.
A) He is trying to defend his action
defend- using an argument to maintain innocence
He was trying to use an argument to maintain the innocence of his actions
B) It is not a defense
Defense- an argument used in vindication or trying to maintain innocence
It is not an argument used in trying to maintain innocence
C)"It is not an argument (noun-defense) used in trying to maintain his innocence, but he is using (verb-defend) an argument to maintain his innocence..."
Do you see what I am saying now? The word valid is needed, in order to get the meaning you want.....
K
Defend/defense isn't always about showing/proving innocence. It could be to make something less severe.
It's not a valid defense at making him "innocent" or "less guilty".
It's not a good argument. Of course, this is all subjective.
Yes I do. You also misunderstood a few things, such as "God gave us desires", but it's not the desire that's the sin, it's the action. When a particular Trump fanatic said "every guy has thought like that" it does nothing to legitimately justify/defend what Trump did/said. It isn't the desire, it's acting on the desire.
It's not a valid defense at making him "innocent" or "less guilty".
It's not a good argument. Of course, this is all subjective.
Yes I do. You also misunderstood a few things, such as "God gave us desires", but it's not the desire that's the sin, it's the action. When a particular Trump fanatic said "every guy has thought like that" it does nothing to legitimately justify/defend what Trump did/said. It isn't the desire, it's acting on the desire.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again on the second part, I understood exactly what was said, but now I understand what you meant... You accidentally said something different than what you meant. You never said the person acted, just they had the feeling God gave them and that they were sorry. I don't make assumptions that the person acted. I take exactly what was said without assuming. Without making assumptions, one has to believe the person was sorry for the desire...."I am sorry for acting on those desires."
K
Chances are I'll do the same (still trying to make peace about it), but that is irrelevant to the indefensible actions Trump does. If Trump said his daughter was a fine piece of... well, he is still not quite on Hillary's level, but nevertheless I would be critical of who he is.
How far do we ignore the content of someone's character because it's all about the Supreme Court Justices?
How far do we ignore the content of someone's character because it's all about the Supreme Court Justices?
I get fed up when I listen to the 4 females that are there not only to support Trump but to stand up and have voice a voice against the Clintons. While president Clinton harassed and raped woman, and his wife was in charge of defending her husband with claims against these woman. What these woman have said, can not be scripted and you can feel the years of a tarnished reputation affect on these woman. Suddenly there name was no longer a personal symbol of who they are but a symbol of how the rich and powerful can get away with rape and many other illegal acts. These females will never own there names again but be in the history books as the woman who yelled rape and sexual harassment against a president. It's sad when people want to compare Trump's words to the Clintons actions. Sick people. If you play this double standard game then everyone shall reap what they have sown. And own up to what they have done.
K
I could be wrong, but there isn't anyone equating Clinton's actions with what Trump did/said (at least on these forums). I think that is a straw man to deflect attention and responsibility of what Trump has done.
In one breath we can condemn the actions of Bill Clinton and in another breath, we can independently condemn the actions of Trump. Pretending there is an equation of what Bill did to Trump is a desperate attempt to tear down a straw man.
In one breath we can condemn the actions of Bill Clinton and in another breath, we can independently condemn the actions of Trump. Pretending there is an equation of what Bill did to Trump is a desperate attempt to tear down a straw man.
