Are white evangelicals the biggest hypocrites?

[Intell]

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.

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

[Firestorm]

King Solomon had, um, quite a few moral failings and yet he is generally looked upon favorably. So too did Charlemagne, so was Henry VIII. If Trump does go to Hell for the life he's lived then he's going to share it with an awful lot of Christendom's greatest defenders.

Probably won't do as good as them, but he can't possibly do any worse than born-again Christians like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Do y'all really think we'd be better off under some pious doddard like Kasich, Huckabee, or Santorum?

(Remember Santorum? The kind of Christian Republican who seems to have taken it seriously and even had a few remarkably centrist/populist economic views? His opponents named a form of anal leakage after him. That's what being a nice guy gets you.)

Anyway... who give's a damn if supporting Trump makes us hypocrites?  We could pick a candidate who agrees with us 100% on biblical teachings and lifestyle choices and we'd still be called hypocrites. Everything we do is apparently some form of hypocrisy, so if we're forced to choose between a bunch of pious losers and a sinful winner then why shouldn't we try to win for once?

If anything, y'all should just be glad that the forebearer of the Secular Right/neo-Rockefeller Republicans got to be Donald Trump and not Rudy Giuliani...

[DC Al Fine]

Does everyone forget the other major candidate was quite in favour of baby butchering and punishing people who don't want to service homosexual weddings? Who are we going to call hypocrites next? Arab Christians who don't vote for Islamist parties?

Short of Jesus Christ being on the ballot, voting is always going to entail some degree of hypocrisy. One can only hope for a reasonable compromise with one's ballot, not total purity. With that in mind, there seems to be a collective amnesia from the Democrats here about the myriad of ways that Hillary Clinton was opposed to Evangelical principles. In fact, many left leaning posters here have described what Evangelicals to be evil as absolute moral goods.

The typical voter, is not going to be well aware of the 3rd party candidates and their views, and will mostly limit their choice to GOP-Dem. Thus, the typical Evangelical is left to decide between preaching life and voting for a pro-abort, or preaching faithful marriage and voting for an adulterer. Throw in the fact that the Democrats were looking to run traditional Christians out of the marriage industry, and its no surprise they went for Trump.

So where does that leave our criticism? We are essentially left with criticizing Evangelicals for not weighing pro-Trump hypocrisy as much as pro-Clinton hypocrisy (hardly 'the biggest hypocrites' then) or for not voting for the American Solidarity Party .

[RINO Tom]

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.

To be fair, it's pretty clear the topic is about the group as a whole, not everyone in the group.

I don't think it makes a difference...

This is kind of funny because there are some people on this forum who have never even met a Trump supporter, yet still attack them relentlessly.

IMO, the thread was certainly implying WHITE evangelicals.  And if I'm correct in reading it that way, I think it's pretty undeniable that there is a HUGE double standard for Republican political types belittling disadvantaged Democrats (racist, of course) compared to Democratic political types belittling disadvantaged Republicans (which not all evangelicals are, of course, but I think this ties into the "poor, rural Whites" debate, as well).  If some redneck goes on a rant about Hillary being a commie and spouts off some conspiracy theories and it makes it on YouTube, liberals would have a field day making fun of how simplistic, close-minded and stupid that redneck sounded ... flip the coin and look at something like the lady in the Obama phone video, and you literally can't say a thing about how hilariously stupid she sounded without being called a racist.

[DC Al Fine]

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".

[pppolitics]

Does everyone forget the other major candidate was quite in favour of baby butchering and punishing people who don't want to service homosexual weddings? Who are we going to call hypocrites next? Arab Christians who don't vote for Islamist parties?

Short of Jesus Christ being on the ballot, voting is always going to entail some degree of hypocrisy. One can only hope for a reasonable compromise with one's ballot, not total purity. With that in mind, there seems to be a collective amnesia from the Democrats here about the myriad of ways that Hillary Clinton was opposed to Evangelical principles. In fact, many left leaning posters here have described what Evangelicals to be evil as absolute moral goods.

The typical voter, is not going to be well aware of the 3rd party candidates and their views, and will mostly limit their choice to GOP-Dem. Thus, the typical Evangelical is left to decide between preaching life and voting for a pro-abort, or preaching faithful marriage and voting for an adulterer. Throw in the fact that the Democrats were looking to run traditional Christians out of the marriage industry, and its no surprise they went for Trump.

So where does that leave our criticism? We are essentially left with criticizing Evangelicals for not weighing pro-Trump hypocrisy as much as pro-Clinton hypocrisy (hardly 'the biggest hypocrites' then) or for not voting for the American Solidarity Party .

No one is perfect, but a candidate who is serial adulterer, who sexually assaults women, who mocks people with disabilities is considered "reasonable compromise"?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

If they don't like either Trump or Clinton, there are third-part candidates to choose from.

If they don't like any of those, they can just not vote.

[White Trash]

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.

[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.

[DC Al Fine]

Does everyone forget the other major candidate was quite in favour of baby butchering and punishing people who don't want to service homosexual weddings? Who are we going to call hypocrites next? Arab Christians who don't vote for Islamist parties?

Short of Jesus Christ being on the ballot, voting is always going to entail some degree of hypocrisy. One can only hope for a reasonable compromise with one's ballot, not total purity. With that in mind, there seems to be a collective amnesia from the Democrats here about the myriad of ways that Hillary Clinton was opposed to Evangelical principles. In fact, many left leaning posters here have described what Evangelicals to be evil as absolute moral goods.

The typical voter, is not going to be well aware of the 3rd party candidates and their views, and will mostly limit their choice to GOP-Dem. Thus, the typical Evangelical is left to decide between preaching life and voting for a pro-abort, or preaching faithful marriage and voting for an adulterer. Throw in the fact that the Democrats were looking to run traditional Christians out of the marriage industry, and its no surprise they went for Trump.

So where does that leave our criticism? We are essentially left with criticizing Evangelicals for not weighing pro-Trump hypocrisy as much as pro-Clinton hypocrisy (hardly 'the biggest hypocrites' then) or for not voting for the American Solidarity Party .

No one is perfect, but a candidate who is serial adulterer, who sexually assaults women, who mocks people with disabilities is considered "reasonable compromise"?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

You're being obtuse to the point of arguing in bad faith. Hypocrisy requires preaching a moral standard. You ought to learn the moral standard preached before you accuse. Evangelicalism preaches against, among other things, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality, so voting for a pro-abortion candidate would also be hypocritical.

Since Evangelicals preach abortion is murder, voting for a pro-abortion candidate is also hypocritical. That brings us to the relevant question: how bad would the other guy have to be before you consider voting for a pro-murder candidate?

If they don't like either Trump or Clinton, there are third-part candidates to choose from.

As I noted before, lack of political awareness hardly constitutes hypocrisy. There's no command to research all the candidates in depth.

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".

I think that's precisely where a lot of people get their view of Christians as hypocrites. You can make a valid argument on both sides of that debate.

Precisely. You can make the argument that it's still hypocritical, but when you're arguing about the appropriate role of the state in a Christian society, it's a lot less cut and dry.

[7,052,770]

Yes, and also really gullible

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

This.

The problem many Evangelicals (mainly white Evangelicals) have is in claiming Trump has more virtues than he actually has.  There are those who say he's been Born Again, and maybe he is, but if he is, he has Eternal Fire Insurance by the skin of his teeth.  He's certainly not sanctified; my prayer is that he'll become a mature Christian over time.

It was the same way in 2012.  Jonathan Falwell invited Mitt Romney to be the commencement Speaker at Liberty University, and he was presented as a Christian speaker.  Now the theological divide between Evangelicals and Mormons is no small matter; it goes to the heart of who Jesus was and is, how one achieves salvation, and how one gets to go to Heaven.  These are matters of eternal consequences.  It's one thing to point out that Romney had more in common on social issues with Evangelicals than Obama, but to backtrack on differences in faith that touch issues of eternity itself is something else.

I will say, unequivocally, that Trump has more respect and regard for Evangelicals than Hillary Clinton did on her best day.  Trump advocated policies that were good for the Church.  Trump has respect for Evangelicals in the sense of someone admiring someone who is somebody he can't be.  I would certainly vote for a friend who will advance my causes over an enemy with more personal virtue.  Politics is about what folks will do in office.  Barry Goldwater had far more integrity and character than LBJ, but who would liberals here have selected in 1964?

[henster]

The same people who freaked out over Michelle Obama wearing a sleeveless shirt now praise Melania for "class" and "grace" it's mind boggling. Also the pro life crowd preaching that 'all life matters' and then sh**tting over refugees and being angry about people on welfare.

[pppolitics]

You're being obtuse to the point of arguing in bad faith. Hypocrisy requires preaching a moral standard. You ought to learn the moral standard preached before you accuse. Evangelicalism preaches against, among other things, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality, so voting for a pro-abortion candidate would also be hypocritical.

Since Evangelicals preach abortion is murder, voting for a pro-abortion candidate is also hypocritical. That brings us to the relevant question: how bad would the other guy have to be before you consider voting for a pro-murder candidate?



As I noted before, lack of political awareness hardly constitutes hypocrisy. There's no command to research all the candidates in depth.


Precisely. You can make the argument that it's still hypocritical, but when you're arguing about the appropriate role of the state in a Christian society, it's a lot less cut and dry.

As I said before, even if they don't know or don't like any of the third-party candidates, they can just not vote.

Instead, those chose to vote for someone who is serial adulterer, who sexually assaults women, who mocks people with disabilities.

[Tartarus Sauce]

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.

To be fair, it's pretty clear the topic is about the group as a whole, not everyone in the group.

I don't think it makes a difference...

This is kind of funny because there are some people on this forum who have never even met a Trump supporter, yet still attack them relentlessly.

IMO, the thread was certainly implying WHITE evangelicals.  And if I'm correct in reading it that way, I think it's pretty undeniable that there is a HUGE double standard for Republican political types belittling disadvantaged Democrats (racist, of course) compared to Democratic political types belittling disadvantaged Republicans (which not all evangelicals are, of course, but I think this ties into the "poor, rural Whites" debate, as well).  If some redneck goes on a rant about Hillary being a commie and spouts off some conspiracy theories and it makes it on YouTube, liberals would have a field day making fun of how simplistic, close-minded and stupid that redneck sounded ... flip the coin and look at something like the lady in the Obama phone video, and you literally can't say a thing about how hilariously stupid she sounded without being called a racist.

I never saw this before, holy hell I just laughed my ass off so hard.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You're being obtuse to the point of arguing in bad faith. Hypocrisy requires preaching a moral standard. You ought to learn the moral standard preached before you accuse. Evangelicalism preaches against, among other things, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality, so voting for a pro-abortion candidate would also be hypocritical.

Since Evangelicals preach abortion is murder, voting for a pro-abortion candidate is also hypocritical. That brings us to the relevant question: how bad would the other guy have to be before you consider voting for a pro-murder candidate?



As I noted before, lack of political awareness hardly constitutes hypocrisy. There's no command to research all the candidates in depth.


Precisely. You can make the argument that it's still hypocritical, but when you're arguing about the appropriate role of the state in a Christian society, it's a lot less cut and dry.

As I said before, even if they don't know or don't like any of the third-party candidates, they can just not vote.

Instead, those chose to vote for someone who is serial adulterer, who sexually assaults women, who mocks people with disabilities.

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.

[pppolitics]

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.

[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. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

I agree with all of the above.  I underlined the part which I view to be the heart of the issue.

At one point, I said I would vote for Johnson.  After a while, I thought about things; the Trump video, raunchy as it was, was from 2005 or 2007 (I'm not sure), and that's a long time ago.  I found the allegations against Trump rather dubious; why are people coming forth now, when Trump has been a huge celebrity billionaire for some time now?  (I noted that a number of GOP intelligence officials had backed Hillary, and I concluded that coming up with folks to accuse Trump of old indiscretions 30-40 years later was a covert operation that wouldn't tax their abilities all that much.  I don't believe in Bullet 399, either.)

Of course, I live in Florida, where the "binary choice" concept is real.  I wonder if folks' decisions to vote 3rd party was driven by where they live.  If I lived in California, I MIGHT have voted a protest vote because I don't sign off on many of Trump's personal behaviors.  (Something for feminists who voted for Bill Clinton twice, as I did, to think about.)

[Firestorm]

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. 

I agree with all of the above.  I underlined the part which I view to be the heart of the issue.

At one point, I said I would vote for Johnson.  After a while, I thought about things; the Trump video, raunchy as it was, was from 2005 or 2007 (I'm not sure), and that's a long time ago.  I found the allegations against Trump rather dubious; why are people coming forth now, when Trump has been a huge celebrity billionaire for some time now?  (I noted that a number of GOP intelligence officials had backed Hillary, and I concluded that coming up with folks to accuse Trump of old indiscretions 30-40 years later was a covert operation that wouldn't tax their abilities all that much.  I don't believe in Bullet 399, either.)

Of course, I live in Florida, where the "binary choice" concept is real.  I wonder if folks' decisions to vote 3rd party was driven by where they live.  If I lived in California, I MIGHT have voted a protest vote because I don't sign off on many of Trump's personal behaviors.  (Something for feminists who voted for Bill Clinton twice, as I did, to think about.)

This is a good argument for either abolishing the electoral college or devolving it to the level of congressional level (which would its own problems; gerrymandered up the wazoo). I suspect that there are quite a few people who either don't vote or don't vote the way they would like because they either don't or do live in swing states. I know quite a few Alabamans who didn't vote because they knew exactly which way their state would lean, so why bother?

(Most people who oppose the EC do so from some concern about "fairness" or democracy. I freely admit that I care neither for fairness nor democracy; I just want a better way of keeping score.)

[DC Al Fine]

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.

And abortion is murder, yet that doesn't seem to factor into your analysis. How much sexual assault would the Democratic nominee have to commit in order for you to vote for a guy who would put gays in the closet? These questions are harder than you think.

[This Has Only Just Begun]

I wouldn't say the biggest hypocrites, but they certainly have a cultural mentality of unending persecution that they use to justify these hypocritical actions.  I mean take gay marriage for instance.  The key argument that Christians were using is that the government was trying to redefine marriage and force them to accept it so the only thing they could do to defend themselves is lead the movement to ban gay marriages.  Also, supposedly "small government" types among them have a tendency to cheer on guys like Trump who throw caution to the wind and just start ruling like dictators rather than get the insight from Congress.

Hilarious considering that they supposedly follow the religion whose teacher once said "turn the other cheek".

[This Has Only Just Begun]

And abortion is murder, yet that doesn't seem to factor into your analysis. How much sexual assault would the Democratic nominee have to commit in order for you to vote for a guy who would put gays in the closet? These questions are harder than you think.

Fair point.

I for one sat out this past election (I really regret it now) because I didn't feel like I could vote for either candidate because they seemed corrupt as all hell.  I mean sometimes you gotta have enough pride and enough common sense to know when the person your friends support is a massive crook regardless of how many vox articles protest otherwise.  People complain about hypocritical standards for evangelicals when a lot of Democrats literally spent something like 3-4 years forcing someone who is probably a criminal onto Democratic Primary voters and buried anybody who dared stand out as an alternative because "that's the ONLY way we'll beat the Rethuglicans!!!!"

I mean, really?

[7,052,770]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though I know you and millions of others honestly believe Hillary would do all that, I have a hard time fathoming how that's possible. None of that is anywhere close to anything Hillary has ever advocated.

It's scary how unscrupulous preachers and Internet trolls on the Right have hoodwinked so many people into believing such nonsense...

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though I know you and millions of others honestly believe Hillary would do all that, I have a hard time fathoming how that's possible. None of that is anywhere close to anything Hillary has ever advocated.

It's scary how unscrupulous preachers and Internet trolls on the Right have hoodwinked so many people into believing such nonsense...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

This, coupled with a packed Supreme Court, could force these changes.

Think about it; they want to infiltrate and manipulate religions that oppose them that they don't believe in. 

John Podesta is neither a preacher, nor a troll.  Think about that as well.

[DC Al Fine]

The overarching problem with this thread is that many non-Evangelicals are either unable or unwilling to argue within Evangelicals moral framework. This leads to the absurdity of asserting Evangelicals don't practice what they preach, while ignoring massive amounts of said preaching. We see this most  notably with abortion*, but it affects a variety of issues such as economics, religious liberty, and education.

Again, I must note, there's still an Evangelical case against Trump, but it is not nearly as clear cut most posters think, and it definitely doesn't make pro-Trump Evangelicals 'the biggest hypocrites EVAH'.

*This is the most egregious example. If one candidate was advocating mass murder in your eyes, it would play a YUGE role in your vote and it would take a massive counterweight to get you to vote for the pro-murder candidate, yet we see the same stupid arguments about how if we really cared, we ought to vote for the pro-murder, somewhat larger welfare state candidate.