A question to and about the evangelical rights support of trump

When have you repented? Sounds like you need to.

 

Mind your own bloody business, cheeky American bugger! I have more sense than to ask a lot of money-mad hypocrites to vote for me, thanks!

 

Derangement is believing in something disproven by facts, Disgust is being revolted by facts.

This is the only way this TDS thingy makes sense.

 

No Christian thinks Trump has morals closest to theirs. McMullin does. But you did not vote for him. You voted for Babylon.

 

Hardly. Trump has a record of cheating on his wives, assaulting women, cheating small business people, etc, etc. You can't even get close with Hillary. And now we know that he paid a porn star for sex and then bribed her to stay quiet after marrying Melania. Trump is a dirt bag.

 

OH I see so its just my understanding of religion that is confounding my sense of both logic and morality.

I guess that is why the various religions have tried to ignore or hide it the gross sins of their clergy. Why they let pedophiles and crooks lead the faithful in holy communion.

And the christians point to Islamists and scream their immorality and perversion. Perhaps they see something of themselves in the refection.

 

Who said anything about hillary? I was specifically talking about the evangelical right. You think any of them would have voted for hillary even if she had a halo?

So you believe that religious morality should be subsumed by political partisanship. The fact that "morality" is not absolute amongst the very same people screaming about the right to exercise their religious morality by discriminating against those they find "sinful"?

I wonder if self forgiveness removes responsibility and consequence of one\s actions.

 

Thank you for pointing out the ludicrous hypocrisy of these people with that fallacious extrapolation, although I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

They'd never leave the house if they applied "morality" in a general sense, but, in a specific sense say like "abortion" or "gay marriage" or "harlotry" well that's okay.

Do you see how stupid your argument sounds?

So the fact that he will perform that task without a sense of morality or ethics is fine. EXACTLY the point.

I can't say I find your justification compelling or even logical. OH wait its faith so logic isn't required.

 

I am not aware of the majority of Christians being happy with everything Trump does.

Perhaps you can provide some links where that claim is made?

 

No we don't but his actions are more likely to be closer than Hillary's would have been.

 

Trump? No, Spooky, no. He is Babylon for real. In comparison, Clinton is a lost, spiteful child.

 

More accurately, they failed to give the devil a threepeat.

 

Paying off strippers for "personal services", bragging about grabbing women by the "p*****", the constant stream of lies, the abject racism, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry. This isn't a matter of perfection.

Not even Alabama accepted Roy Moore. And, Trump has clearly been far worse in every way - other than the age of his victims, perhaps.

 

Trump's marriage to the religious right reeks of hypocrisy on both sides
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...religious-right-hypocrisy-values-voter-summit

 

Good post!

"Trump exposes the religious right’s moral pretension for the veneer it’s always been."

This contention is incontrovertible and the argument in this article is thorough.

 

I'm not evangelical. I'm not even religious.

But the answer is two things: (1) They voted for the agenda, not the man, and (2) Hillary Clinton, with all her toxicity (I won't list it all) was the alternative, and her agenda was opposed to their agenda (abortion, religious freedom issues, etc).

I have known evangelicals and been around them. They would like to vote for a Michelle Bachmann-like candidate, but I have never known one who said they wouldn't vote for anyone except an evangelical.

The Bible quotes Jesus as telling them to "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and render unto God that which belongs to God" which means they should pay their taxes even if the government does things with their taxes that they think is sinful. This can easily be extended to voting for a president. Pragmatic choices may be made about citizenship - like taxes and voting - while maintaining their faith at the same time.

 

i get the convenient suspension of morality when applied to "caesar" (a frightening image of autocracy) so mundane secular issues can be dealt with.

What I still don't get is how can a religious person support a secular sinner of such magnitude to represent them, to lead them, to show America's face to the world? Those on the outside, who aren't facile in "interpreting" scriptures to accommodate such doctrinal dispensation, simply see hypocrisy.

Not that conservative evangelicals are unique in this manipulation of religious doctrine to support certain selected secular desires or critical religious/political aims. ISIS does the same thing. Every christian cultist does it. Hell hassidic jews do it and extreme hindus do it. Every mainstream religious group does it to some extent.

Then of course there is that whole "anti christ" thing that evangelicals go on about all the time. Wouldn't he force a moral suspension in the process of attaining power? Isn't that how the devil rolls? I am not be a religionist or biblical scholar so I'm willing to accept there is something I'm entirely missing. CAn you perhaps help me out?

 

The Christians who vote for Trump are giving what is God's to Caesar.

 

Well ... If you believe what the Bible says, it says that all people are sinners, and all have fallen short. They also believe in forgiveness and redemption. A true believer believes that we should hate the sin but love our fellow man, for we are really no better than anyone else in God's eyes.

Furthermore, evangelicals are also Americans. And, as Americans, they want to participate in our political process. Most evangelicals are patriotic, and so it follows that they participate in the political process.

Now, if they were to participate in this last presidential election, they were given two choices, excluding the 3rd party candidates. I think they believed that Hillary Clinton was antithetic to the things they believe in, such as their pro-life belief. So I think they just voted for the one sinner who more closely represented their agenda. It was a pragmatic choice, not necessarily an endorsement of the sins of the candidate.

As a non-religious person, I can tell you that my vote for Trump was not an endorsement of all the things that are wrong with him. It was a vote for the agenda. It was also a vote against Hillary Clinton who, I can assure you, is no less toxic to a large segment of the public than Trump is to a large segment of the population.

Lastly, when Jesus said to "render that which belongs to God", the implication is that each individual Christian should take care of their own belief and faith in and obedience to God. That is a personal matter between each individual and God, and Trump's relationship with God is his own personal matter between him and God. The Bible tells Christians not to be judgemental, for that is not their place; it is God's place. I am also reminded of a story Jesus told where he admonished his followers not to point an accusing finger at the sliver in a person's eye, while they have a log in their own. And so, they may cast a vote for a sinner, for if they cast their vote for his opponent, that opponent is also a sinner. And so it follows that the agenda is what matters, not the relative sinfulness of the two candidates, for that is God's purview, not theirs.

In case you're wondering, as a boy and teenager, I was a believer, and I did receive a lot of religious training, and so I can still recall some of that teaching, and I understand where evangelicals are coming from. But, as time went on into adulthood, my beliefs didn't stick, and now I'm just sort of an agnostic. So I don't speak as an evangelical, but I understand evangelicals, I think, and I understand the precepts of their beliefs.

Seth

 

Are you implying that christians can tolerate something that is not godlike... perhaps something like gay marriAge for example?

 

Of course, we must tolerate many things that are not godlike.

Including gay marriage.

Its the law so we have to live by it, however it doesn't mean we have to support it.

Can we still vote for a candidate if he supports gay marriage?

Sure, why not.

As a christian I can tell you that religion plays no role in who I choose to vote for. I would easily vote an atheist in over a christian if I thought they were a better politician.

I'm not going to take my car to a christian mechanic to get fixed if there is this super awesome mechanic right next store who is far better but hates God.

That's between him and God, I just want my car fixed.

 

Thanks that makes it somewhat clearer. Your reply prompted this thought.
The religiously devout who voted for clinton claimed it was his sinful hateful nature that they rejected which MANIFESTED in many of his policy ideas AND the derision, ridicule, animus and lies he used in delivering it. Is this just the flip side of a convenient alignment between morality and political partisanship?

If that actually is the case, and even it it isnt now, i shall have to reexamine my understanding of the place morality holds within the lives of the faithful. I do not thank you for the work that lies ahead, just the thought itself.

Cheers.

 

Well I'm not surprised that some believers voted for Clinton. I think that just speaks to the fact that one's religious belief may be something that other believers agree with while they don't necessarily agree on politics. The New Testament doesn't tell people how to vote. It's whole purpose is to explain the deity of Christ, and the pathway to heaven and eternal life through faith in Him.

But where I think you are wrong is to judge the personal morality of the faithful based upon how they vote.

I am an independent conservative person. Morality is very important to me in the way I lead my life. My neighbors of 37 years are committed liberals. But they too are honest and peaceful, and morality is strong with them as well. I don't believe they are religious, although I don't know. I just don't think they are. But if we both were religious, I don't think we would change our political views, nor would one of us be more moral than the other, even though our faith might be the same.

Cheers.

 

Moral and ethical like Trump....lol

 

Do you hang out with your liberal neighbors sometimes for dinner and drinks?