Evangelicals without Standards

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Cant we all just agree that neither major party candidate is a of the moral standard needed to hold the highest office in the land?

No. Because that's pretending they're equal, and they're not.

Clinton is a typical, perhaps even excellent, establishment politician.

Trump is an exceptionally despicable and incompetent con-man.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Cant we all just agree that neither major party candidate is a of the moral standard needed to hold the highest office in the land?

No. Because that's pretending they're equal, and they're not.

Clinton is a typical, perhaps even excellent, establishment politician.

Trump is an exceptionally despicable and incompetent con-man.

Yes, this sort of false equivalency needs to stop. Hillary didn't follow all regulations for email usage amongst government employees, Trump has sexually molested women and is openly proud and has bragged about that.

[ApatheticAustrian]

usually the "vote for the lizard, not the wizard" line would fit, but trump is arguably as good with lying as hillary...just much more often ...has as much weaker grip on reality...is even greedier...and hints all the time he would screw the constitution and all parts of government.

he is the lizard AND the wizard at the same time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah, and if the best defense of Trump one can make more or less amounts to "Trump is a terrible human being, but he's willing to give us our thirty pieces of silver", well...

[Ebowed]

No matter your creed, I think we can all agree that sexual assault is wrong, that stealing from your employees is wrong, and that inciting racial hatred is wrong.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No matter your creed, I think we can all agree that sexual assault is wrong, that stealing from your employees is wrong, and that inciting racial hatred is wrong.

And that scamming vulnerable people with bullsh!t promises is wrong.

[Badger]

Yeah, and if the best defense of Trump one can make more or less amounts to "Trump is a terrible human being, but he's willing to give us our thirty pieces of silver", well...

Damn! That's...excrutiatingly accurate.

[ag]

Wonderful post by you there, Fuzzy Bear. Thanks so much. I understand what you said, and appreciate it, even as I disagree because I come to the table with such profoundly different assumptions. Fair enough. Wouldn't it be grand, if we were all more civil about this, myself included? But you have set the example to follow.

I have to disagree with you here. Fuzzy Bear has openly called you and me enemies in this post.

[ag]

Yeah, and if the best defense of Trump one can make more or less amounts to "Trump is a terrible human being, but he's willing to give us our thirty pieces of silver", well...

Damn! That's...excrutiatingly accurate.

I am afraid even that is puting it very mildly.

[Slow Learner]

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

That is true, yes.

[Gustaf]

This is an ugly, ugly thread, and I'm not really interested too much in getting myself, except to point out that many posters here, myself included, take politics way too seriously.  Most Christians don't even care much about politics, and many don't vote at all.  Evangelicals come in all shades and stripes, and the majority of adult, voting-age Evangelicals won't be voting for Trump, even if he gets over 50% head-to-head among those who do plan to vote.  And salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ alone, not who one votes for in this election.  Non-Christians getting to define who is and isn't a Christian is pretty laughable, even if they are correct in pointing out Trump's moral turpitude. Both candidates are terrible as far as I'm concerned, and it hearkens back to what John Calvin said about government:  When God wants to judge a nation, he gives them wicked leaders.  That rings true now more than ever.

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

While true, even heretics can be Christians and saved. We aren't exclusionists.

Yes, Catholics can be saved despite a partially errant salvation doctrine and rejection of monergism.  

God established the local church for believers to worship in .  His will is best glorified in a Reformed church, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, or non-denominational.  

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I'm a Christian and consider myself to be more so than someone like Fuzzy Bear who exploits women's suffering to advance a political agenda. Anyone who stands for bragging about sexual assault, inciting racial war and religious persecution isn't getting the support of true Christians.

[afleitch]

An Evangelism movement borne out of post 60's boomer hedonism that promotes the self, and self fulfillment and a 'personal' relationship with God above all things, without standards? Surely some mistake.

[Phony Moderate]

I'd say supporting Trump's policies as an evangelical is more hypocritical than supporting Trump the human being as an evangelical.

[RFayette]

This is an ugly, ugly thread, and I'm not really interested too much in getting myself, except to point out that many posters here, myself included, take politics way too seriously.  Most Christians don't even care much about politics, and many don't vote at all.  Evangelicals come in all shades and stripes, and the majority of adult, voting-age Evangelicals won't be voting for Trump, even if he gets over 50% head-to-head among those who do plan to vote.  And salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ alone, not who one votes for in this election.  Non-Christians getting to define who is and isn't a Christian is pretty laughable, even if they are correct in pointing out Trump's moral turpitude. Both candidates are terrible as far as I'm concerned, and it hearkens back to what John Calvin said about government:  When God wants to judge a nation, he gives them wicked leaders.  That rings true now more than ever.

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

While true, even heretics can be Christians and saved. We aren't exclusionists.

Yes, Catholics can be saved despite a partially errant salvation doctrine and rejection of monergism.  

God established the local church for believers to worship in .  His will is best glorified in a Reformed church, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, or non-denominational.  

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I'm a Christian and consider myself to be more so than someone like Fuzzy Bear who exploits women's suffering to advance a political agenda. Anyone who stands for bragging about sexual assault, inciting racial war and religious persecution isn't getting the support of true Christians.

This is a matter of how people weight issues.  Very few Evangelicals would support Trump because of those things you mentioned and most are supporting him because of the views his opponent has on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues.  I am not, but the fact is that abortion is extremely important among Evangelical voters, since most consider it tantamount to the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year.  You seem to imply that only your moral calculus is acceptable for a Christian to hold in determining how to vote this year - other weightings of the issues and considerations automatically discount someone form being a Christian, a notion which I reject.


But my main point is that the determinant of whether someone is a Christian is not whom they vote for, but rather whether or not they have true repentance and faith in Christ, which is demonstrated by fellowship in a Bible-believing church and continued sanctification and growing in knowledge of the Word.  It has nothing to do with how someone votes, as far as the Bible is concerned.  I just find it troubling that you make the determination of judging who is and isn't a "true Christian" based on voting without even acknowledging the fact that no one is righteous apart from God and that our salvation is not about the good works we do, but rather unmerited grace from God.  As such, I find the statement that "no true Christian is a Trump supporter" extremely presumptuous, especially if one does not give a definition of what a Christian is.   Perhaps voting for Trump is a sin (I would argue why someone votes for a person is far more important than for whom, but I digress), but that doesn't change the fact that God does not impute sin to a Christian's account, because it has already been imputed unto Jesus at the cross, so we don't have to bear the punishment we deserve.  "Blessed is the man whom God does not impute sin." 

[Gustaf]

This is an ugly, ugly thread, and I'm not really interested too much in getting myself, except to point out that many posters here, myself included, take politics way too seriously.  Most Christians don't even care much about politics, and many don't vote at all.  Evangelicals come in all shades and stripes, and the majority of adult, voting-age Evangelicals won't be voting for Trump, even if he gets over 50% head-to-head among those who do plan to vote.  And salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ alone, not who one votes for in this election.  Non-Christians getting to define who is and isn't a Christian is pretty laughable, even if they are correct in pointing out Trump's moral turpitude. Both candidates are terrible as far as I'm concerned, and it hearkens back to what John Calvin said about government:  When God wants to judge a nation, he gives them wicked leaders.  That rings true now more than ever.

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

While true, even heretics can be Christians and saved. We aren't exclusionists.

Yes, Catholics can be saved despite a partially errant salvation doctrine and rejection of monergism.  

God established the local church for believers to worship in .  His will is best glorified in a Reformed church, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, or non-denominational.  

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I'm a Christian and consider myself to be more so than someone like Fuzzy Bear who exploits women's suffering to advance a political agenda. Anyone who stands for bragging about sexual assault, inciting racial war and religious persecution isn't getting the support of true Christians.

This is a matter of how people weight issues.  Very few Evangelicals would support Trump because of those things you mentioned and most are supporting him because of the views his opponent has on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues.  I am not, but the fact is that abortion is extremely important among Evangelical voters, since most consider it tantamount to the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year.  You seem to imply that only your moral calculus is acceptable for a Christian to hold in determining how to vote this year - other weightings of the issues and considerations automatically discount someone form being a Christian, a notion which I reject.


But my main point is that the determinant of whether someone is a Christian is not whom they vote for, but rather whether or not they have true repentance and faith in Christ, which is demonstrated by fellowship in a Bible-believing church and continued sanctification and growing in knowledge of the Word.  It has nothing to do with how someone votes, as far as the Bible is concerned.  I just find it troubling that you make the determination of judging who is and isn't a "true Christian" based on voting without even acknowledging the fact that no one is righteous apart from God and that our salvation is not about the good works we do, but rather unmerited grace from God.  As such, I find the statement that "no true Christian is a Trump supporter" extremely presumptuous, especially if one does not give a definition of what a Christian is.   Perhaps voting for Trump is a sin (I would argue why someone votes for a person is far more important than for whom, but I digress), but that doesn't change the fact that God does not impute sin to a Christian's account, because it has already been imputed unto Jesus at the cross, so we don't have to bear the punishment we deserve.  "Blessed is the man whom God does not impute sin." 

I am perhaps a little bit sweeping here. But the evils of Trump run so counter to central tenets of Christianity that I'm deeply unconvinced that people who wear their faith on their sleeve and make their religious considerations central to their political beliefs could vote for that.

And I mean, let's get real. A Trump presidency won't end abortion. The man is pro-choice anyway or was until he started lying about being an evangelical. And even if he wasn't abortion wasn't ended by George W. Bush, it won't end now. Gay Marriage is already done and public opinion has already swung on that. The insane paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton ending religious freedom is what I just said.

The evangelicals who claimed for years to care about family values have now sold out those values completely. I think that's disgraceful because it reveals a breathtaking hypocrisy in those people. I think it's especially revolting from someone like Fuzzy Bear who now suddenly pretends to care about female victims of sexual assault in order to cling on to his candidate. It's a sordid display, unworthy of someone who claims to be pious.

Note also that Fuzzy Bear has repeatedly stated that he doesn't normally vote Republican necessarily. He is fine voting for pro-abortion candidates it seems. He jumped on the Republican ship enthusiastically to back Trump, not reluctantly. Since what sets Trump apart from your typical Republican is racism and sexual assault I don't buy that a good Christian would have these types of preferences.

[RFayette]

This is an ugly, ugly thread, and I'm not really interested too much in getting myself, except to point out that many posters here, myself included, take politics way too seriously.  Most Christians don't even care much about politics, and many don't vote at all.  Evangelicals come in all shades and stripes, and the majority of adult, voting-age Evangelicals won't be voting for Trump, even if he gets over 50% head-to-head among those who do plan to vote.  And salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ alone, not who one votes for in this election.  Non-Christians getting to define who is and isn't a Christian is pretty laughable, even if they are correct in pointing out Trump's moral turpitude. Both candidates are terrible as far as I'm concerned, and it hearkens back to what John Calvin said about government:  When God wants to judge a nation, he gives them wicked leaders.  That rings true now more than ever.

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

While true, even heretics can be Christians and saved. We aren't exclusionists.

Yes, Catholics can be saved despite a partially errant salvation doctrine and rejection of monergism.  

God established the local church for believers to worship in .  His will is best glorified in a Reformed church, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, or non-denominational.  

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I'm a Christian and consider myself to be more so than someone like Fuzzy Bear who exploits women's suffering to advance a political agenda. Anyone who stands for bragging about sexual assault, inciting racial war and religious persecution isn't getting the support of true Christians.

This is a matter of how people weight issues.  Very few Evangelicals would support Trump because of those things you mentioned and most are supporting him because of the views his opponent has on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues.  I am not, but the fact is that abortion is extremely important among Evangelical voters, since most consider it tantamount to the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year.  You seem to imply that only your moral calculus is acceptable for a Christian to hold in determining how to vote this year - other weightings of the issues and considerations automatically discount someone form being a Christian, a notion which I reject.


But my main point is that the determinant of whether someone is a Christian is not whom they vote for, but rather whether or not they have true repentance and faith in Christ, which is demonstrated by fellowship in a Bible-believing church and continued sanctification and growing in knowledge of the Word.  It has nothing to do with how someone votes, as far as the Bible is concerned.  I just find it troubling that you make the determination of judging who is and isn't a "true Christian" based on voting without even acknowledging the fact that no one is righteous apart from God and that our salvation is not about the good works we do, but rather unmerited grace from God.  As such, I find the statement that "no true Christian is a Trump supporter" extremely presumptuous, especially if one does not give a definition of what a Christian is.   Perhaps voting for Trump is a sin (I would argue why someone votes for a person is far more important than for whom, but I digress), but that doesn't change the fact that God does not impute sin to a Christian's account, because it has already been imputed unto Jesus at the cross, so we don't have to bear the punishment we deserve.  "Blessed is the man whom God does not impute sin."  

I am perhaps a little bit sweeping here. But the evils of Trump run so counter to central tenets of Christianity that I'm deeply unconvinced that people who wear their faith on their sleeve and make their religious considerations central to their political beliefs could vote for that.

And I mean, let's get real. A Trump presidency won't end abortion. The man is pro-choice anyway or was until he started lying about being an evangelical. And even if he wasn't abortion wasn't ended by George W. Bush, it won't end now. Gay Marriage is already done and public opinion has already swung on that. The insane paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton ending religious freedom is what I just said.

The evangelicals who claimed for years to care about family values have now sold out those values completely. I think that's disgraceful because it reveals a breathtaking hypocrisy in those people. I think it's especially revolting from someone like Fuzzy Bear who now suddenly pretends to care about female victims of sexual assault in order to cling on to his candidate. It's a sordid display, unworthy of someone who claims to be pious.

Note also that Fuzzy Bear has repeatedly stated that he doesn't normally vote Republican necessarily. He is fine voting for pro-abortion candidates it seems. He jumped on the Republican ship enthusiastically to back Trump, not reluctantly. Since what sets Trump apart from your typical Republican is racism and sexual assault I don't buy that a good Christian would have these types of preferences.

I agree with you about gay marriage and abortion most likely being here to stay, but my point remains insofar as people want to vote against those politicians who explicitly promote such policies, even if the alternative is less-than-savory.

The central tenet of Christianity is that we deserve to go to hell but that we can escape damnation by repentance and faith in Christ, trusting in his finished work on the cross to separate us from the sins we rightly deserve to be punished for.  If one looks at the Old Testament, God can certainly seem authoritarian or xenophobic at times by the standards of many people here, and from a Christian POV the Old Testament is inspired by God (obviously Christians are divided on inerrancy/infallibility, but still).  The Christian doctrine of government is different than how a Christian should live personally.  "Turning the other cheek" makes no sense for a government to follow, as it would result in national decimation.  Rather, what I see as a command for government is to be "agents of wrath against the wrongdoer" according to Romans 13:4.  Christians can support a wide degree of government styles based on scripture, which is why many were Loyalists during the American Revolution, believing that the British were God's ordained authority on this Earth.  Plenty of Christians supported both sides during the Civil War, even though the Northern side was unquestionably on the right side morally. Surely you don't consider Trump as bad as Jefferson Davis, even if you hate him with every fiber of your being?  

Ultimately, God places all  leaders in authority by his will (Romans 13:1).  There is not a single leader who was not put in place by his omnipotent hand.  God's the one in control, not you or me. I'm not interested in defending individual Evangelical leaders in the "religious right" or whatever, but I strongly dislike the idea that salvation or one's true status as a Christian is determined by anything other than what the Bible has as tests for a true believer (fruits of repentance), which are found in the book of 1 John.  Anything else is adding to what scripture says.   What unites all Christians is faith in Christ and in his death, burial, and resurrection - politics there will be disagreements, as there always has been and always will be, until the return of Christ.

[Gustaf]

This is an ugly, ugly thread, and I'm not really interested too much in getting myself, except to point out that many posters here, myself included, take politics way too seriously.  Most Christians don't even care much about politics, and many don't vote at all.  Evangelicals come in all shades and stripes, and the majority of adult, voting-age Evangelicals won't be voting for Trump, even if he gets over 50% head-to-head among those who do plan to vote.  And salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ alone, not who one votes for in this election.  Non-Christians getting to define who is and isn't a Christian is pretty laughable, even if they are correct in pointing out Trump's moral turpitude. Both candidates are terrible as far as I'm concerned, and it hearkens back to what John Calvin said about government:  When God wants to judge a nation, he gives them wicked leaders.  That rings true now more than ever.

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

While true, even heretics can be Christians and saved. We aren't exclusionists.

Yes, Catholics can be saved despite a partially errant salvation doctrine and rejection of monergism.  

God established the local church for believers to worship in .  His will is best glorified in a Reformed church, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, or non-denominational.  

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I'm a Christian and consider myself to be more so than someone like Fuzzy Bear who exploits women's suffering to advance a political agenda. Anyone who stands for bragging about sexual assault, inciting racial war and religious persecution isn't getting the support of true Christians.

This is a matter of how people weight issues.  Very few Evangelicals would support Trump because of those things you mentioned and most are supporting him because of the views his opponent has on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues.  I am not, but the fact is that abortion is extremely important among Evangelical voters, since most consider it tantamount to the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year.  You seem to imply that only your moral calculus is acceptable for a Christian to hold in determining how to vote this year - other weightings of the issues and considerations automatically discount someone form being a Christian, a notion which I reject.


But my main point is that the determinant of whether someone is a Christian is not whom they vote for, but rather whether or not they have true repentance and faith in Christ, which is demonstrated by fellowship in a Bible-believing church and continued sanctification and growing in knowledge of the Word.  It has nothing to do with how someone votes, as far as the Bible is concerned.  I just find it troubling that you make the determination of judging who is and isn't a "true Christian" based on voting without even acknowledging the fact that no one is righteous apart from God and that our salvation is not about the good works we do, but rather unmerited grace from God.  As such, I find the statement that "no true Christian is a Trump supporter" extremely presumptuous, especially if one does not give a definition of what a Christian is.   Perhaps voting for Trump is a sin (I would argue why someone votes for a person is far more important than for whom, but I digress), but that doesn't change the fact that God does not impute sin to a Christian's account, because it has already been imputed unto Jesus at the cross, so we don't have to bear the punishment we deserve.  "Blessed is the man whom God does not impute sin."  

I am perhaps a little bit sweeping here. But the evils of Trump run so counter to central tenets of Christianity that I'm deeply unconvinced that people who wear their faith on their sleeve and make their religious considerations central to their political beliefs could vote for that.

And I mean, let's get real. A Trump presidency won't end abortion. The man is pro-choice anyway or was until he started lying about being an evangelical. And even if he wasn't abortion wasn't ended by George W. Bush, it won't end now. Gay Marriage is already done and public opinion has already swung on that. The insane paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton ending religious freedom is what I just said.

The evangelicals who claimed for years to care about family values have now sold out those values completely. I think that's disgraceful because it reveals a breathtaking hypocrisy in those people. I think it's especially revolting from someone like Fuzzy Bear who now suddenly pretends to care about female victims of sexual assault in order to cling on to his candidate. It's a sordid display, unworthy of someone who claims to be pious.

Note also that Fuzzy Bear has repeatedly stated that he doesn't normally vote Republican necessarily. He is fine voting for pro-abortion candidates it seems. He jumped on the Republican ship enthusiastically to back Trump, not reluctantly. Since what sets Trump apart from your typical Republican is racism and sexual assault I don't buy that a good Christian would have these types of preferences.

I agree with you about gay marriage and abortion most likely being here to stay, but my point remains insofar as people want to vote against those politicians who explicitly promote such policies, even if the alternative is less-than-savory.

The central tenet of Christianity is that we deserve to go to hell but that we can escape damnation by repentance and faith in Christ, trusting in his finished work on the cross to separate us from the sins we rightly deserve to be punished for.  If one looks at the Old Testament, God can certainly seem authoritarian or xenophobic at times by the standards of many people here, and from a Christian POV the Old Testament is inspired by God (obviously Christians are divided on inerrancy/infallibility, but still).  The Christian doctrine of government is different than how a Christian should live personally.  "Turning the other cheek" makes no sense for a government to follow, as it would result in national decimation.  Rather, what I see as a command for government is to be "agents of wrath against the wrongdoer" according to Romans 13:4.  Christians can support a wide degree of government styles based on scripture, which is why many were Loyalists during the American Revolution, believing that the British were God's ordained authority on this Earth.  Plenty of Christians supported both sides during the Civil War, even though the Northern side was unquestionably on the right side morally. Surely you don't consider Trump as bad as Jefferson Davis, even if you hate him with every fiber of your being?  

Ultimately, God places all  leaders in authority by his will (Romans 13:1).  There is not a single leader who was not put in place by his omnipotent hand.  God's the one in control, not you or me. I'm not interested in defending individual Evangelical leaders in the "religious right" or whatever, but I strongly dislike the idea that salvation or one's true status as a Christian is determined by anything other than what the Bible has as tests for a true believer (fruits of repentance), which are found in the book of 1 John.  Anything else is adding to what scripture says.   What unites all Christians is faith in Christ and in his death, burial, and resurrection - politics there will be disagreements, as there always has been and always will be, until the return of Christ.

I can understand that in a time of ingrained racism some people did not know better than to vote for someone like Jefferson Davis. Trump I feel has less of an excuse. He's someone who deliberately chooses not to educate himself, who could do good with his money but decides to be evil. The same goes for his voters. If you refuse to acknowledge that being racist is wrong today I think less of you personally than I would for someone being racist back when it was more mainstream.

I'm not talking about normal political disagreement. When someone claims their political choices are guided by their faith but then choose to support someone who makes a mockery of that faith with his evil ways I won't believe they are sincere. I had strong disagreements with people Bush and Romney but I totally understood why many Christians supported them.

[RFayette]

I can understand that in a time of ingrained racism some people did not know better than to vote for someone like Jefferson Davis. Trump I feel has less of an excuse. He's someone who deliberately chooses not to educate himself, who could do good with his money but decides to be evil. The same goes for his voters. If you refuse to acknowledge that being racist is wrong today I think less of you personally than I would for someone being racist back when it was more mainstream.

I'm not talking about normal political disagreement. When someone claims their political choices are guided by their faith but then choose to support someone who makes a mockery of that faith with his evil ways I won't believe they are sincere. I had strong disagreements with people Bush and Romney but I totally understood why many Christians supported them.

Being a racist is always wrong, whether it was popular or not.  God's laws are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  I don't think morality is determined by the calendar year.  My point is that you can be wrong and still be a saved individual.  Yes, people may vote on a different moral calculus and perhaps a disagreeable one, but that doesn't change the fact that they are forgiven by God because they were saved.  One can make political choices based on a different moral calculus and still be Christians - hence why Southerners in the 1850's voted for secession and strongly supported slavery, and yet multitudes were born-again Christians and likely voted that way while citing their faith.  I still count them as brothers in Christ because if one repents and believes the Gospel, they are a Christian.  In a similar way, people can make incorrect political judgments today.  How much information they have today depends on multiple variables, and that's for God to judge, not me.  Nonetheless, it's impossible for someone to lose their salvation, so your claim must be that these Trump voters never repented and believed in Jesus in the first place, correct?  Furthermore, obviously Jefferson Davis is far more racist than Trump is, so even if one applied a higher standard of morality to people today than in the past, my argument would still work.  Consider if you grew up in rural Mississippi:  do you really think you'd have the same opinions on these things as you do now?  I highly doubt it.  

The point is that salvation is of the Lord.  We are all imperfect vessels and we all deserve to go to hell.  

We are all wretches and deplorable people.  If we get what we deserve, we would all be doomed when we die.  While there are different degrees of "wrongness" that can be debated upon, it can't change the fact that we only have one hope to be saved, and that hope is Jesus Christ.

[DINGO Joe]

"Evangelicals without Standards" sounds like an internet dating/hookup website.

[ag]

The Trumpista PC brigade is, indeed, funny. They were absolutely fine about me being called rapist (full disclosure: I married young a girl I had known since middle schol and have been devoutely monogamous all my life - one does not need a god to do so, it is enough simply to love one's wife), they are fine with calls for a civil war, they are fine with all sort of racial, ethnic and gender name-calling - but when you call them up on their hateful murderous ideology they cry like babies, scream they are being treated unfairly and whatever. Oh, I am told I am being offensive, I will lose sleep over that. Actually, I won't.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Trumpista PC brigade is, indeed, funny. They were absolutely fine about me being called rapist (full disclosure: I married young a girl I had known since middle schol and have been devoutely monogamous all my life - one does not need a god to do so, it is enough simply to love one's wife), they are fine with calls for a civil war, they are fine with all sort of racial, ethnic and gender name-calling - but when you call them up on their hateful murderous ideology they cry like babies, scream they are being treated unfairly and whatever. Oh, I am told I am being offensive, I will lose sleep over that. Actually, I won't.

I have not engaged in any of that, period.

That people don't agree with me is fine.  That people deliberately smear me is not OK, and I'll call people on that, and what they do. 

[ag]

The Trumpista PC brigade is, indeed, funny. They were absolutely fine about me being called rapist (full disclosure: I married young a girl I had known since middle schol and have been devoutely monogamous all my life - one does not need a god to do so, it is enough simply to love one's wife), they are fine with calls for a civil war, they are fine with all sort of racial, ethnic and gender name-calling - but when you call them up on their hateful murderous ideology they cry like babies, scream they are being treated unfairly and whatever. Oh, I am told I am being offensive, I will lose sleep over that. Actually, I won't.

I have not engaged in any of that, period.

You use your agent - your presidential candidate - to do it. And you think your god is sufficiently blind not to notice.

I am not smearing you. I am just letting you know that in my book you are not a good person at all, no matter how abstinent your wife was inbetween marriages (sorry, I am not the one who brought this up - it was you; beats me, why anybody would think it is at all pertinent to the topic under discussion - hey, I can boast perfect monogamy throughout my life, does it count?). Trump himself is, of course, as a disgrace to human race, but his supporters are much worse. And still worse are those who (claim to) understand what Trump is, but still support him.  There is no excuse: not before other humans, not before whatever deity you may choose to believe in. I have no doubt that, if hell exists, you will burn in it for eternity.

[ag]

"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do."

But you do know. That is why you will burn in hell.

[mark_twain]

The world has evolved immensely since Christianity was founded.

Back then, government was an external entity to Christians, as they had no say in how the government was operated. The teachings of Christianity were largely based on the government being the outside force.

Modern governments are based on democracy, and it is every citizen's duty to vote in a way that reflects his own morals. The power to vote is a luxury, and Christian voters (or those of other religions) should value that power greatly, for it is how they can make their mark on their government.

Voting for a candidate with bad morals and judgment like Trump is the same thing as condoning that candidate's morals and judgment. It is basically setting a poor example of one's own religion for the rest of the country to see.

[ag]

The world has evolved immensely since Christianity was founded.

Back then, government was an external entity to Christians, as they had no say in how the government was operated. The teachings of Christianity were largely based on the government being the outside force.

Actually, not quite true. Sure, that minor Jewish prophet, Jesus, and his direct followers were outsiders. But teachings of the Christian church, as we know it, were developed substantially later. Nicene Creed - the statement of faith for most Christians today - was adopted in 325, just as Christianity was beginning the process of becoming the Imperial religion. The composition of what Christians consider the canonical New Testament was formalized around the same time, or slightly later, during the fourth century, and for the same reason, really: the government of the Empire needed a well-defined set of beliefs to distinguish "good" loyal Christians from those, whose loyalty was suspect. I could see the argument, of, say Jehovah´s witnesses or Mormons, who have abandoned the Trinitarian orthodoxy established during that period, that their faith was/is not born of symbiosis with the government, but, for most of the rest of those calling themselves Christians, it is simply not a historically correct statement.