The OT and NT preach the same message, because Jesus is the focus of both of them.
Jesus Christ is the message. The solution is in the OT, and it's Christ. And since everything done in the OT by God was good and holy, and since God does not change, the whole OT is still good and holy.
It is blasphemous to claim God's character changed between the OT and NT. His character does not change, He is perfect and good. If you can't see the New Testament in the Old Testament, you can't see Jesus. He came to fulfill the law, as He said. This is because the law was created to achieve the ideals espoused in the NT.
And again, the moral law is distinct from the ceremonial and judicial/civil law (though ultimately these are man-made categories. But, as Paul tells us, all scripture is profitable for learning). The moral law does not change. What is good does not change.
Also, Jesus explicitly outlined things that no longer apply, like the dietary laws and circumcision. What He didn't do was tell us to go around having gay butt sex whenever we please. In fact, he explicitly reiterates that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the rest of the NT is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin.
Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
This isn't talking about rape, it's talking about men and women having consensual sex among their own genders. I don't know about you, but this is sounding kinda OT to me.
It's perfectly possible to pick a meritorious woman for the role. The fact Trump didn't suggests that wasn't his goal, or that he actually fucked up. Take your pick.
Picking a candidate based on identity only becomes a problem when merit isn't considered at all, as the left does it, or when there actually isn't a good person to pick at all because the identity criteria are too strict, as the left also does it (i.e. black trans woman that's gay and is married to an Asian man).
It's entirely possible that things like his anti-Q tirade aren't meant for us or the normies, but the deepstate players as a way to bait a certain reaction.
We usually jump to wondering what we're being told, but maybe it isn't us being told anything, but instead it's some psyop strategy against the deepstate to get them to take a certain action.
This is one of those "the fuck?" moments.
Like, it's almost hard to believe he's saying it so bluntly. There must be some other, benign thing he's referring to. Right? Something the normies could use to justify it as a nothingburger. Surely.
Yet, by all accounts, he seems to have just directly confirmed what we've always been saying, with no two ways about interpreting it any other way.
Our bodies and souls belong to God, and God can heal all things.
On the one hand, yes, very wrong, very sinful.
On the other hand, you could be Genghis Khan 2.0's grandfather.
Based father moment.
No, it doesn't. And reading in a bunch of new age interpretations will never change the Word of God.
You can't accept the new without the old. The old predicts the new. The entire OT prefigures the NT. Christ is ever-present throughout the Old Testament. He permeates it. And Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
Further, it is against Man's nature to engage in homosexuality. God made us for each other. Man and woman He made us. There is no way to read the Bible and come to this liberal theology nonsense.
So, respectfully, you don't have some hidden, unknown knowledge that most Christians are unaware of. The translations are accurate, and it has been known for 2000 years what Christ was talking about.
Also, there's a really good reason why not one single successful society exists that tolerates homosexuality, open relationships, polygamy, etc.
The arguments presented here go further in depth on this and to me are very compelling: https://americansfortruth.com/2013/08/09/gay-marriage-and-distant-consequences-homosexuality-sexual-immorality-and-the-downfall-of-american-civilization/
And for bonus points: Ancient Greece did not accept homosexuality, and young boys did not have sexual relationships with older men. That is a liberal lie to defame our ancestors and push their own ideology.
Homosexuality has been rejected in every society to exist, and for good reason.
Edit: also, the OT saying that homosexuality was abomination was not just the law for the Jews. The OT saying to execute homosexuals was. One is moral, the other is legal. God's morals don't change, while the law only exists to guide us towards the moral.
An upstanding citizen of what? An upright, just, and virtuous society? Impossible, as no such society would tolerate or accept such a thing.
The thing is, to be an abomination to God precludes one from the description "upstanding". An acceptance of such a thing leads to the wholesale destruction of any and every society that tries or has ever tried it.
When taking into account all the ways in which kids can be groomed to be gay, the portion left that is "born gay" might as well be zero.
Even if no direct grooming takes place, what are the kids exposed to? Our modern culture is a sexually depraved wasteland, and there's likely plenty of shit being used by the cabal to achieve their goals in very subtle ways.
Even just unintentional environmental cues could lead to such a behavior or outlook, particularly in our society, which would affirm this before suggesting that it is inherently wrong.
I also find it extremely uncompelling to think that a man could simply not be attracted to the opposite sex. Something is more than likely physically or psychologically wrong at that point.
And in the same way someone with a propensity for angry outbursts is not valid in their disordered urges, someone with a propensity for homosexuality is not valid in their disordered urges.
The first guy shouldn't yell at people and should work to control his anger, and the second guy shouldn't have gay butt sex and should work to control his sexual desires.
A fake science invented by *a pedophille
Fixed it.
Shitpedia link but the info is there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
Money introduced new terminology in sex research, coining the terms gender role and sexual orientation.
Money coined the term chronophilia and nepiophilia (sexual attraction to toddlers and infants) in 1986. In two 1983 case study publications, Money stated that pedophilia, among other chronophilias, could be characterized as combining "devotion, affection, and limerence", "comradeship with a touch of hero-worship" and ultimately as "harmless... in most instances".
He stated that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. According to Colapinto, Money told ''Paidika'', a now defunct Dutch journal of pedophilia, that: "If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way."
I'd say there's plenty of people who are truly MAGA, but they simply don't know what it takes to make a country great. Poor theological foundation leads to decent people doing their best to do the right thing, but veering off the path due to lack of knowledge of what that means.
Trump likely picks them since he knows that with him steering the ship, he can still use what they do know to improve things for our country.
Fair point, he definitely took an even harder, maybe uncharitable stance compared to Vengeance's.
What does it matter if we win, if we destroy the country in the process? Not being subservient to the Lord leads to the downfall of society.
And the ends don't justify the means. It's not worth it to "own the libs" if it means doing that which is wrong.
Oh, but it is.
To have a propensity for a certain sin is not inherently due to ideology, but to accept a behavior as good, ok, and correct, especially when he claims to be a practicing Christian, is 100% an ideology.
If he can't read the Bible clear-mindedly enough to realize that homosexuality is sin, how can he be trusted to read any laws and come to a sound conclusion? Or to read the constitution and understand it?
Homosexuality goes against God, and therefore is for Satan.
Grenell can not be unrepentantly gay and Christian, in the same way a Mormon can't deny the divinity of Christ and be a Christian. To deny that homosexuality is bad is to deny Christ.
Now this I 100% agree with.
I don't know how a single person with a functioning brain could justify the idea that Trump + gay dude is worse than Biden + Kameltoe or any other shit tier Democrat ticket.
Politically, Trump is our best shot. To refuse to vote for him because of his VP is akin to just giving up altogether.
I never espoused a total meritocracy, hence "sufficiently" qualified. Though also, and I made this same argument back when I was defending Amy Coney Barrett from people saying Trump was playing identity politics, but you can usually find a perfectly qualified candidate even if you decide they have to meet some qualification that's unrelated to merit.
The same applies here. Where it stops applying is when ludicrous lefties want to find some unicorn who's a black, gay, trans woman, since there aren't very many of them to begin with. When that is your criteria, you end up with someone unqualified. When your criteria is "straight white man" or "woman" your selection pool is like half of the available candidates because plenty of those kinds of people exist in our country.
Now, you're not totally wrong on race. If there was no good white candidate I'd agree, as my position is not "don't pick a non-white dude" but instead "pick a white dude", however there are absolutely plenty of equally good candidates that are white and so it should be no issue to pick one of them.
And I never said I had any religious standing for the white part (though I'm sure I could conjure something logical up. God did separate the nations, and gave different nations to different peoples), and because of that it's the qualifier I care the least about. However, until the demonization of the white race ceases, I'm perfectly fine holding to the position that white people should be preferred for these roles. That's an active preference for something, as opposed to a specific aversion to something.
Edit: Also, to be clear after rereading your initial comment, and since this comment mainly focuses on scenarios where there's no most qualified: I would absolutely turn down a gay dude even if he was objectively the most qualified.
Frankly, I'd argue that being gay precludes one from being qualified to run a country in the first place. Society can not stand on rejection of God. At that point we are already doomed to destruction and failure.
That of course doesn't apply to race, though I'd likely apply it to gender as well.
Homosexuality is abomination.
Not every homosexual is a child predator.
Both of these are true, and it's not fucking hard to not be a tool and accept this.
Otherwise, mostly accurate and based.
I don't know that I'd call the comment balanced...
100% unequivocally and unashamedly accurate, maybe, but not balanced.
Well, to be fair, it's certainly balanced for 120 years ago. But for today it's a hard stance against the perverted ways of the modern world, which is exactly what we need.
Demons, probably.
Contradiction in terms.
But no, I'd still vote for the Donald because he's the best we've got, whether or not he picks a gay dude.
Trump + gay is far superior to Biden + Kameltoe (or any other configuration of Satanic deepstate cabal members).
No hypocrisy here: Trump should pick a sufficiently qualified heterosexual, white, Christian man.
Calling an election with not even 20% of the vote in, especially when it's close when even when it's not, is fake and gay no matter who is in the lead.