Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[Brian Stoffregen]

I answered with a question related to the question you asked.  You wanted to know if we should believe if farming is a less worthy vocation than sheepherding which is why I asked if you believed city dwellers are less worthy than country dwellers.  It’s the same question when one ponders the texts being discussed.  It’s also the wrong question to ask.  A simple reading of Genesis reveals that both farmers and cities are not seen in a positive light.  Farming which leads to cities leads the people further away from full trust in the Creator (Luther writes about the problems of cities in his Genesis commentary as well).   This way of life finds expression in the Egyptian empire which is where Moses (the writer) and Israel have just been.  What’s more, Abram is called out of the land of Mesopotamia which is synonymous with the Egyptian empire.   Remember too, that Egyptians detest shepherds for a reason, probably because they couldn’t control them because of their nomadic lifestyle.  There’s a tension between these two “vocations” in the text.  Like I said before, there’s much to unpack. 

Now does this mean that farming is a less worthy profession than shepherding today or is living in a city somehow wrong?  No, because that’s not the point as evidenced by the Scriptures.  The issue is faithfulness to God, to Jesus, to his ways.  Doing what’s expected, following the rules is not always god pleasing either as evidenced by Cain in Genesis and the Pharisees later on.  Abel is faithful even though he does not do what’s culturally expected which is just like what we see with Jesus in the gospels.  His faithfulness to God does not always translate to godliness in the eyes of the people or the Pharisees for that matter.   We see this theme continually play out in the Scriptures.

I said be careful what you say about limited government because like your line about farmers there’s much that we benefit from when it comes to government, particularly big government.  For example, the Interstate Highway System or the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  In other words, I’m giving you a hard time. I believe this has to do with the New York Values I was raised with that limited government guys like Cruz detest.   I couldn't resist.

I note that even when the people of Israel were nomads in the wilderness, their trust in God wavered greatly. Human beings are sinful when nomads or city-dwellers, farming or office workers, etc.

[George Erdner]

It is not a Christian, or even a religious, observation, but there is much truth to the saying that "Good fences make good neighbors".

Just as one can quote Scripture out of context, so can one quote Robert Frost. The poem actually is arguing against the wall that the narrator's neighbor insists on building. The concluding lines:

It comes to little more:   
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.   
My apple trees will never get across   
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.     25
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."   
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder   
If I could put a notion in his head:   
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it   
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.    
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know   
What I was walling in or walling out,   
And to whom I was like to give offence.   
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,   
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,    
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather   
He said it for himself. I see him there,   
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top   
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.   
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,    
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.   
He will not go behind his father's saying,   
And he likes having thought of it so well   
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."   

Goes to show that Robert Frost was full of sheep dip.

And rather than make a second, redundant post, I have to wonder something. Did the Pope condemn the wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala?

[Chuck]

Did the Pope condemn the wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala?

Another bit of bogus information.

[peter_speckhard]

It is not a Christian, or even a religious, observation, but there is much truth to the saying that "Good fences make good neighbors".

Just as one can quote Scripture out of context, so can one quote Robert Frost. The poem actually is arguing against the wall that the narrator's neighbor insists on building. The concluding lines:

It comes to little more:   
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.   
My apple trees will never get across   
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.     25
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."   
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder   
If I could put a notion in his head:   
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it   
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.    
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know   
What I was walling in or walling out,   
And to whom I was like to give offence.   
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,   
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,    
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather   
He said it for himself. I see him there,   
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top   
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.   
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,    
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.   
He will not go behind his father's saying,   
And he likes having thought of it so well   
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."   

Interestingly, the whole poem is an argument between two doctrines/theories/observations: "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," which is a gut feeling, and "Good fences make good neighbors," which is a bit of traditional folk wisdom (made up by Frost but put into the mouths of his neighbor and his neighbor's father who taught it to him). Both lines are stated twice in the course of the poem, but the first line is Something there is that doesn't love a wall, and the last line is Good fences make good neighbors. So even though Frost is arguing for the former, the poem acknowledges that it is a futile struggle of the innate, individualistic, free spirit against the orderly, societal, traditional way of things. I suppose a truly populist candidate could make hay with either line.

[Michael Slusser]

I've been looking for a transcript of the interview on the plane returning to Rome where Pope Francis answered a question about Donald Trump and his wall proposal. I found it at http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome-85821/

Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etcetera. I would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?
 
Pope Francis: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.

Here it is in the original, which in the case of Pullela was Italian:
Phil Pullella, “Reuters”

Buona sera, Santità. Lei oggi ha parlato molto eloquentemente dei problemi degli immigrati. Dall’altra parte della frontiera, comunque, c’è una campagna elettorale abbastanza dura. Uno dei candidati alla Casa Bianca, il repubblicano Donald Trump, in un’intervista recentemente ha detto che Lei è un uomo politico e addirittura ha detto che forse Lei è anche una pedina, uno strumento del governo messicano per la politica di immigrazione. Lui ha dichiarato che, se eletto, vuole costruire 2.500 km di muro lungo la frontiera; vuole deportare 11 milioni di immigrati illegali, separando così le famiglie, eccetera. Allora, vorrei chiedere prima di tutto che cosa pensa di queste accuse contro di Lei e se un cattolico americano può votare per una persona del genere.

Papa Francesco

Ma, grazie a Dio che ha detto che io sono politico, perché Aristotele definisce la persona umana come “animal politicus”: almeno sono persona umana! E che sono una pedina… mah, forse, non so… lo lascio al giudizio vostro, della gente… E poi, una persona che pensa soltanto a fare muri, sia dove sia, e non a fare ponti, non è cristiana. Questo non è nel Vangelo. Poi, quello che mi diceva, cosa consiglierei, votare o non votare: non mi immischio. Soltanto dico: se dice queste cose, quest’uomo non è cristiano. Bisogna vedere se lui ha detto queste cose. E per questo do il beneficio del dubbio.

[Michael Slusser]

Did the Pope condemn the wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala?

Another bit of bogus information.

Very, very interesting! Thank you for spotting this.

Peace,
Michael

[D. Engebretson]

And, fwiw, I think Pope Francis does understand the primacy of the Gospel.

How can one understand the primacy of the Gospel apart from Christ?

Are you suggesting that the Pope is not known by Christ?

No, I was not suggesting anything remotely close to that.  My point had to do with the definition of the Gospel.  How can one understand the primacy of the Gospel without considering the primacy of Christ. 

[D. Engebretson]

Has any of you noticed any pundit, news outlet, or political candidate quoting the end of the Pope's reply to the reporter's question?

I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.

Peace,
Michael

It is important to consider context and the entirety of the message.  That said, I'm still not sure I entirely understand what the pope meant.  What defines someone as "not Christian" according to what he said?  I have to think it's a bit deeper than just the issue of walls and bridges between any two nations. 

[Boris]

For what it is worth, my take on what Pope Francis said is that he was using the word "Christian" as an adjective, not as a noun. I think he was using it in the sense I am using it in the sentence below:

   That is not a very Christian thing to do.  In this sense, Christian could mean merciful, ethical or even nice in a sort of bland way.

I don't think the Pope meant it as a noun.  For example, one might say:

    Are you a Christian (noun)?  No, I am a Zoroastrian (noun), not a Christian (noun). 


  When I went on dictionary.com and looked up the word "Christian" as an adjective, it listed several definitions.  I think definitions 4-6 were what Pope Francis had in mind:

4.
exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:
She displayed true Christian charity.
5.
decent; respectable:
They gave him a good Christian burial.
6.
human; not brutal; humane:
Such behavior isn't Christian.

I don't think Pope Francis meant that Donald Trump does not have a personal faith in Christ.  Not at all.

[D. Engebretson]

For what it is worth, my take on what Pope Francis said is that he was using the word "Christian" as an adjective, not as a noun. I think he was using it in the sense I am using it in the sentence below:

   That is not a very Christian thing to do.  In this sense, Christian could mean merciful, ethical or even nice in a sort of bland way.

I don't think the Pope meant it as a noun.  For example, one might say:

    Are you a Christian (noun)?  No, I am a Zoroastrian (noun), not a Christian (noun). 


  When I went on dictionary.com and looked up the word "Christian" as an adjective, it listed several definitions.  I think definitions 4-6 were what Pope Francis had in mind:

4.
exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:
She displayed true Christian charity.
5.
decent; respectable:
They gave him a good Christian burial.
6.
human; not brutal; humane:
Such behavior isn't Christian.

I don't think Pope Francis meant that Donald Trump does not have a personal faith in Christ.  Not at all.

Thank you.  I had not considered the use of "Christian" as an adjective.  It changes the meaning considerably.  Even then I think the pope misunderstands the rationale for the proposed wall, and as such interpreted the action as a deliberate act of exclusion, instead of a national security concern which still allows movement of people between the two countries.  But my interpretation of his words, if intended the way you note, is far more understandable.  For the record, if this is what he meant, Trump also misinterpreted the pope's words. 

[Boris]

For what it is worth, my take on what Pope Francis said is that he was using the word "Christian" as an adjective, not as a noun. I think he was using it in the sense I am using it in the sentence below:

   That is not a very Christian thing to do.  In this sense, Christian could mean merciful, ethical or even nice in a sort of bland way.

I don't think the Pope meant it as a noun.  For example, one might say:

    Are you a Christian (noun)?  No, I am a Zoroastrian (noun), not a Christian (noun). 


  When I went on dictionary.com and looked up the word "Christian" as an adjective, it listed several definitions.  I think definitions 4-6 were what Pope Francis had in mind:

4.
exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:
She displayed true Christian charity.
5.
decent; respectable:
They gave him a good Christian burial.
6.
human; not brutal; humane:
Such behavior isn't Christian.

I don't think Pope Francis meant that Donald Trump does not have a personal faith in Christ.  Not at all.

Thank you.  I had not considered the use of "Christian" as an adjective.  It changes the meaning considerably.  Even then I think the pope misunderstands the rationale for the proposed wall, and as such interpreted the action as a deliberate act of exclusion, instead of a national security concern which still allows movement of people between the two countries.  But my interpretation of his words, if intended the way you note, is far more understandable.  For the record, if this is what he meant, Trump also misinterpreted the pope's words.

Thank you.

I don't think Pope Francis is known for his great precision with words, esp. when he speaks off the cuff.  For example, I think if Pope Benedict were the current pope and had been asked this question, my guess is that he would have responded with sharper and greater theological precision. My guess is that Benedict might have said something like this:

 We must ask ourselves the question behind the question here. Why do some Americans feel a wall is necessary? If there is a problem of illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico, is building a wall the real answer to that question?  Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is what is causing this immigration of Mexicans in large numbers to the United States?  Why do so many Mexicans want to leave their native country?  Perhaps rather than building a wall, the Mexican and US govt's can come together and figure out how they can mutually solve this problem to benefit both countries.

I think that's how a wiser and more philosophical pope might have answered the question.  Because as a pope, you really want to try to remain as neutral as you can when discussing the relations between nations and avoid every appearance of being partisan.

[George Erdner]

It is not a Christian, or even a religious, observation, but there is much truth to the saying that "Good fences make good neighbors".

Just as one can quote Scripture out of context, so can one quote Robert Frost. The poem actually is arguing against the wall that the narrator's neighbor insists on building. The concluding lines:

It comes to little more:   
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.   
My apple trees will never get across   
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.     25
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."   
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder   
If I could put a notion in his head:   
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it   
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.    
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know   
What I was walling in or walling out,   
And to whom I was like to give offence.   
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,   
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,    
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather   
He said it for himself. I see him there,   
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top   
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.   
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,    
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.   
He will not go behind his father's saying,   
And he likes having thought of it so well   
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."   

Interestingly, the whole poem is an argument between two doctrines/theories/observations: "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," which is a gut feeling, and "Good fences make good neighbors," which is a bit of traditional folk wisdom (made up by Frost but put into the mouths of his neighbor and his neighbor's father who taught it to him). Both lines are stated twice in the course of the poem, but the first line is Something there is that doesn't love a wall, and the last line is Good fences make good neighbors. So even though Frost is arguing for the former, the poem acknowledges that it is a futile struggle of the innate, individualistic, free spirit against the orderly, societal, traditional way of things. I suppose a truly populist candidate could make hay with either line.

I don't much care where the saying came from, or what whoever wrote it meant by it. In 64 years of wandering this planet, I have observed first-hand that the statement is, for the most part, accurate most of the time. More often than not, it is true. For my purposes, seeing the truth of the statement in real life using my own two eyeballs means more to me than any scholarly discourse to confound and confuse the issue. Regardless what that adage came from, a good, stout wall between the United States and Mexico, with well-maintained and regulated gateways at convenient locations where people and goods can transit through would make the situation with regards to illegal aliens and drug smugglers crossing the border.

If someone wants to chime in about whether or not the wall with well maintained and regulated gateways is a good thing, I'm interested in hearing those opinions. I frankly don't give a damn about the origin of a common cliche.

[SomeoneWrites]

It is not a Christian, or even a religious, observation, but there is much truth to the saying that "Good fences make good neighbors".

Just as one can quote Scripture out of context, so can one quote Robert Frost. The poem actually is arguing against the wall that the narrator's neighbor insists on building. The concluding lines:

It comes to little more:   
He is all pine and I am apple-orchard.   
My apple trees will never get across   
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.     25
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."   
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder   
If I could put a notion in his head:   
"Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it   
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.    
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know   
What I was walling in or walling out,   
And to whom I was like to give offence.   
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,   
That wants it down!" I could say "Elves" to him,    
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather   
He said it for himself. I see him there,   
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top   
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.   
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,    
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.   
He will not go behind his father's saying,   
And he likes having thought of it so well   
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."   

Interestingly, the whole poem is an argument between two doctrines/theories/observations: "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," which is a gut feeling, and "Good fences make good neighbors," which is a bit of traditional folk wisdom (made up by Frost but put into the mouths of his neighbor and his neighbor's father who taught it to him). Both lines are stated twice in the course of the poem, but the first line is Something there is that doesn't love a wall, and the last line is Good fences make good neighbors. So even though Frost is arguing for the former, the poem acknowledges that it is a futile struggle of the innate, individualistic, free spirit against the orderly, societal, traditional way of things. I suppose a truly populist candidate could make hay with either line.

I don't much care where the saying came from, or what whoever wrote it meant by it. In 64 years of wandering this planet, I have observed first-hand that the statement is, for the most part, accurate most of the time. More often than not, it is true. For my purposes, seeing the truth of the statement in real life using my own two eyeballs means more to me than any scholarly discourse to confound and confuse the issue. Regardless what that adage came from, a good, stout wall between the United States and Mexico, with well-maintained and regulated gateways at convenient locations where people and goods can transit through would make the situation with regards to illegal aliens and drug smugglers crossing the border.

If someone wants to chime in about whether or not the wall with well maintained and regulated gateways is a good thing, I'm interested in hearing those opinions. I frankly don't give a damn about the origin of a common cliche.

Ill chime in with this, but mostly for giggles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgZz85Naxo

and this for informative giggles.
http://hyperallergic.com/264750/the-spite-house-an-architectural-phenomenon-built-on-rage-and-revenge/

[mariemeyer]

When I went to Europe four years after the end of WWII, there were crossing places between France, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and West Germany where one had to show passports, but there no walls between the countries.  Passports had to be shown when disembarking from ships or when the train went from one country to another, but I have no memory of barbed wires along the boundaries between nations.  In time the Russians built the Berlin wall, but there was no wall between the French and the Germans. Might there be a lesson here?



Marie





   

[Team Hesse]

I answered with a question related to the question you asked.  You wanted to know if we should believe if farming is a less worthy vocation than sheepherding which is why I asked if you believed city dwellers are less worthy than country dwellers.  It’s the same question when one ponders the texts being discussed.  It’s also the wrong question to ask.  A simple reading of Genesis reveals that both farmers and cities are not seen in a positive light.  Farming which leads to cities leads the people further away from full trust in the Creator (Luther writes about the problems of cities in his Genesis commentary as well).   This way of life finds expression in the Egyptian empire which is where Moses (the writer) and Israel have just been.  What’s more, Abram is called out of the land of Mesopotamia which is synonymous with the Egyptian empire.   Remember too, that Egyptians detest shepherds for a reason, probably because they couldn’t control them because of their nomadic lifestyle.  There’s a tension between these two “vocations” in the text.  Like I said before, there’s much to unpack. 

Now does this mean that farming is a less worthy profession than shepherding today or is living in a city somehow wrong?  No, because that’s not the point as evidenced by the Scriptures.  The issue is faithfulness to God, to Jesus, to his ways.  Doing what’s expected, following the rules is not always god pleasing either as evidenced by Cain in Genesis and the Pharisees later on.  Abel is faithful even though he does not do what’s culturally expected which is just like what we see with Jesus in the gospels.  His faithfulness to God does not always translate to godliness in the eyes of the people or the Pharisees for that matter.   We see this theme continually play out in the Scriptures.

I said be careful what you say about limited government because like your line about farmers there’s much that we benefit from when it comes to government, particularly big government.  For example, the Interstate Highway System or the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  In other words, I’m giving you a hard time. I believe this has to do with the New York Values I was raised with that limited government guys like Cruz detest.   I couldn't resist.

I note that even when the people of Israel were nomads in the wilderness, their trust in God wavered greatly. Human beings are sinful when nomads or city-dwellers, farming or office workers, etc.

It would appear that Rev Geminn, in his own chain-pulling way, was offering an analysis that I would not dispute... The shepherding lifestyle is closer to godliness than farmer which is closer than village which is closer than town which is closer than city which is closer than megalopolis. With the need for more governance growing more acute at each stage, this actually supports the argument that I made way up- stream that the need for more government is a sure sign of the increasing wickedness of the people that need to be governed.....


Lou (still a fan of limited government whose original sense of personal call was to be a shepherd deep in Australia's outback)