Are white evangelicals the biggest hypocrites?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with their political preferences, but rather the nature of Christianity itself and what hypocrisy is - professing to believe in a standard and then not reaching it. 

Following Jesus is hard, and attempting to live a holy life without sin is always going to result in you following short.  Hypocrisy is inevitable if getting angry at someone is counted as murder, looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and nobody truly loves their neighbor as themselves every minute .  It's impossible to live up to God's perfect standards found in the New Testament, which are far tougher than simply following a set of rules.  And naturally as fallen human beings we will fall short of these perfect standards, so if we believe them, we're going to fall short.  Conversely, if one doesn't believe in the New Testament, or takes a liberal or figurative view of it, their moral bar will be one easier to meet and thus you won't be a hypocrite in that sense.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I feel like if this thread involved black evangelicals instead of white evangelicals, it would be taken down.

Yay, let's call an entire group of people stupid because they don't like the same candidates we do.

There was only one candidate who supported policies opposite of what Christ taught.

Oddly enough that is who evangelicals flocked to in droves.

Christ did not teach moral policies of the government, if you are talking about the "red letters," so I don't see how you can say that government policy has anything to do with teachings on individual morality by Jesus.  Besides, if John 1 is to be believed, then Christ (and the Holy Spirit, which is God along with the son) is the author of the whole Bible.  This isn't to excuse Trump's immorality, and I was not a supporter of him, but if you think that Christianity demands nonviolence on the part of the government, then that directly contradicts Romans 13:4 as well as pro-capitalist verses such as 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I feel like if this thread involved black evangelicals instead of white evangelicals, it would be taken down.

Yay, let's call an entire group of people stupid because they don't like the same candidates we do.

There was only one candidate who supported policies opposite of what Christ taught.

Oddly enough that is who evangelicals flocked to in droves.

Christ did not teach moral policies of the government, if you are talking about the "red letters," so I don't see how you can say that government policy has anything to do with teachings on individual morality by Jesus.  Besides, if John 1 is to be believed, then Christ (and the Holy Spirit, which is God along with the son) is the author of the whole Bible.  This isn't to excuse Trump's immorality, and I was not a supporter of him, but if you think that Christianity demands nonviolence on the part of the government, then that directly contradicts Romans 13:4 as well as pro-capitalist verses such as 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

I'm just going to point this out;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+24%3A10-22&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+28%3A8&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+15%3A10-11&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A22-25&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+112%3A9&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A21&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A44-45&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A22-25&version=ESV

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Timothy-6-10/

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/James-5-1_5-6/

These verses certainly show that Trump does not bear the marks of a true Christian, but virtually none of them have to do with government policy.  I am not arguing in defense of Trump the man, but rather what the Christian view of government is, which I would assert is vastly different than the responsibility of individual Christians.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Government Policy doesn't or shouldn't dictate what the morality of the society should be?

There's a huge spectrum between the secular "no religious influence on government" view and "every commandment of the Christian religion should be law".

This.  My point is that some verses of scripture would be more applicable to government, like Romans 13:4, while others, like the idea of "turning the other cheek" and loving your enemies on the Sermon on the Mount would be utterly impossible from a foreign policy POV.  Certainly, protecting institutions like life and marriage, with roots in Genesis (Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 9:6) is far, far different than the specific laws given to Israel in the Mosaic covenant or the rather extreme commandments regarding charity and forgiveness found in the New, with respect to applicability toward the government.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

And if I do so, and that candidate wins, what becomes the consequences?

+++ SCOTUS Justices that will expand abortion rights beyond what is in place now

+++ SCOTUS Justices entrenching euthanasia in law

+++ Use of the IRS to persecute religious schools, charitable organizations, and legitimate ministries.

+++ Justice Department officials that will actively move against Christians who preach the Biblical view of homosexuality as "hate speech"

+++  Justice Department officials taking action to force Christian schools and organizations (and other religious schools and organizations) to employ open homosexuals, even when being a believing Christian manifesting a Christian lifestyle is a legitimate job requirement (including forcing churches to ordain women and homosexuals, regardless of doctrine)

+++ Initiatives to remove church tax exemptions

+++ Political operatives infiltrating churches in deliberate attempts to change their doctrines (the "Catholic Spring" of Podesta's e-mails)

There is no proof that Donald Trump "sexually assaults women".  There is certainly proof that Bill Clinton did, and that Hillary Clinton ran a smear campaign to discredit his accusers (for HER benefit, not his).  

Hillary Clinton is anti-Evangelical.  If she could, she would use her Presidential power to silence churches that preach that homosexuality is sin.  The Bible says it is, and Evangelical Christians believe that Scripture is authoritative.  Hillary Clinton is a candidate that would actively work to force believers to disobey their God and conform to a humanist vision of how things should be.  The election of 2016 was a binary choice, and one choice would have the effect of inviting persecution onto the Church.  Neither Clinton nor Trump are particularly Godly folks, but policy matters, and I am not favorably disposed to supporting someone whose desire is to twist my arm when it comes to what I know God's Word to be.

So what you are saying is that you would vote for the devil so as long as he purports to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Also, "grab them by the p****" is sexual assault.

In reality, only one devil exists (Satan himself) and if we are going by Biblical standards, every single person is both an adulterer and a murderer in God's eyes (and would be judged guilty as such without the saving power of Christ) because the Lord Jesus himself said that looking at a woman with lust constitutes adultery in the heart and hating a brother is seen as the same as murder at heart.  So the reality is, unlike your straw man, is two bad candidates, neither of whom are the devil (and neither is any human).  Both are no doubt not very sanctified, and the real choice for Evangelicals was between the policies of the two candidates.  I supported Castle (flipped a month before the election) because of the Access Hollywood tapes, but many of my brothers in Christ supported Trump and I fully support them in that.  Quit distorting scripture to fit your own worldview.

As an aside, this thread illustrates why Democrats do so badly with Evangelicals:  they don't understand our theology or foundational beliefs, so their caricatures of what we believe and our reasoning are so distorted that it's downright comical. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

For the record, abortion rates did not rise under Bush.  In fact, they fell under the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2.  Of course facts can sometimes be inconvenient for those who want to push a special narrative. 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

It is not hypocritical whatsoever and perfectly ideologically consistent for someone to be a faithful Christian, simply not believe the entire Bible to be the literal word of God and do what they think - based on the broader, more important teachings of Christ - God's will actually is RE: tolerance.  They're not worse Christians than you are.

I'm having a hard time getting how one can read the Gospels and get 'tolerance' as a major teaching of Christ. Even ignoring my Christian preconceptions, Jesus of Nazareth can be quite prickly at times.

Indeed.  I don't get how someone can read Luke 12 & 14 and Matthew 5 and somehow envision Jesus as the nice hippie founding a religion of pure tolerance and acceptance only to be spoiled by mean ol' Paul. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The problem with calling Jesus a "good teacher" but not actually divine is that it would make Jesus look like a lunatic or a malicious liar based on the things he said.

What kind of "good teacher" would say things like found in Luke 14:26-33, for example?  In light of those passages, if I didn't believe Jesus was the son of God, I'd consider him an absolute lunatic, hardly worthy of any praise or commendation.  In fact, if Jesus were not the son of God, he would be in terms of number deceived, the greatest fraudster ever to live:  how is that in any way respectable?