A question to and about the evangelical rights support of trump

I have always thought that christian morality was how christians lived a christian life. It was their "guides to goodness" and the fight against the devil in all his guises.

So I don't understand the evangelical right's continued support for trump. Here is a man who lives and has lived an immoral life regardless of his economic success. He paid a porn star hush money thru his lawyer thru a numbered company set up precisely to "hide" the payment DURING the campaign. This is sinful in so many ways.

Can one prioritize god's morality and select which to excuse and which to enforce to the exclusion of all else?

It seems they're conflating morality and partisanship and surely that is a corruption of god's word.

The democrats failed at electing Jesus, but the republicans were spectacularly successful in electing a devil. How does that whole antichrist thing go again?

 

Why? Easy. The evangelical right puts political gain and power above morality.

 

So what should we do, simply not vote even though the outcome will affect our lives?

Yes, sorry that Jesus isn't running so we have to pick from those that are.

Not everything is so black in white in the real world you know.

You act like Christians should just hide in a closet and never come out because they may have to do something that isn't Godlike.

 

Spooky, give that nonsense up.

Vote your Christian beliefs, not political immorality.

 

No I ask why such "religious pious" people could support such a morally corrupt man. Is say "abortion" the issue of morality that is enables the acceptance of such a sinful person? Is it immigration their xenophobia?

I realize its all tradeoffs, but it seems that when one sacrifices their own moral judgement to single purpose they are putting secular politics ahead of the rest of their morality. NOt the way of jesus in any way shape or form. Christians use to die to defend their morality. Guess now everything is for sale.

 

Um, they don't get to choose an ideal candidate, they have to select from what's available.

You do understand that don't you?

Do you think that if they go to a football game and one team is from a christian college and the other isn't that they must root for the christian team?

 

They can abstain when both candidates are unworthy.

 

The trade off is precisely the point I was trying to make. according to the religious right, THEIR religious morals supercede any law of the land. indeed they demand the right to discriminate in order to preserve their religious morality. And yet, their dear leader is a moral wasteland. They are willing to sacrifice their morality to support an immoral sinner as the man to represent both themselves and their nation.

Select what is available? So ones morality is secondary to one's political objectives? Do you get the hypocrisy of supporting such a morally and ethically bankrupt individual?

 

So the United States should have either refused Russia's support against Naziism in WW2 or attacked Russia when it was over?
The suggestion of the OP is totally inane, imo. Voting for a distant 3rd party candidate is tantamount to not voting and if you follow Christian teachings the predominant command is that we must vote for the best of whoever has a chance to win, not stay home.
Consequently, the top poster being miffed we would vote for Trump and his reasons are, imo, dumb.

 

Hell, forget about Dirty Don for a second. Many of these evanjellies backed child molester Moore in that Alabama election last month.

evanjellies are nothing more than posers with little to no morals in my book...

 

Your strawman is inane and if that is an example of the quality of your opinion, then I'll just ignore the rest of the nonsense.

 

Your message-less comment here already proves you ignored it.

 

Yes, I ignore the inanity of strawmen and the people who think they're valid and germane.

 

But you have to get the last word in (again, saying nothing) because it still bothers you someone may think yow cowered away. Like me.

 

vanity is named well: has to have the last word. Adorable.

 

According to that logic they should never leave the house then because they will have to deal with someone that doesn't follow their moral code. If the drive-thru person isn't a hardcore christian it would violate their morals. If the guy changing their oil isn't a christian it would violate their morals.

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Should they ask the checkout girl if she supports abortion before she rings up their grocery order?

Of course not.

Its the same with a president, he does a job and its doubtful any of them will fit their religious convictions but they still need someone to perform that task for them.

 

Yes but unfortunately one of the candidates will have an impact directly on their lives so it is prudent of them to pick the one closest to their morals.

Not leave it up to chance.

 

Bake a cake for a gay wedding or vote for a clearly immoral man, which do you think is most likely to ensure a good judgement in heaven. After all isn't that what this life is all about for Christians?

 

So they picked a candidate who deports children, defunds help for the poor, assaults women, and actually has no respect for any human life other than his own, and is an obvious racist. Believe the operable word is " hypocracy"

 

Or, perhaps, 'racism'?

 

There are no sinless people anywhere...especially in politics. People vote on how well a person will carry out the job. And their perceived trustworthyness on doing what they say they will do. The reason I voted for trump is because he is willing to tell us what he would do...and he carried more credibility then the republican candidates who have a strong history of outright lying to their voters.

To say Hillary is a more "moral " choice is laughable.

 

Compared with the Buffoon, clearly, she is a saint. At best Trump would be a holy fool - if he showed the slightest sign of being even decent. American fundamentalist 'Christianity' seems to be straight blasphemy to anyone brought up on the real thing.

 

This argument is more illogical TDS.

 

I don’t think you understand Christianity. Everyone is a sinner. The key is to try and be moral and ethical. Christians understand no one is perfect.

It sounds like you are advocating intolerance which appears to be a liberal value.

 

How?

When has the Buffoon ever repented? You choose unrepentant sinners to rule you and hate others, eh? Very Christian!