Because Trump in no way embodies the values a true Christian embraces. He does not believe in the sanctity of marriage, he lies habitually, he will cheat anyone to increase his own wealth, he treats women as objects. Do you want me to go on?
1 Like
Again, President Obama professed to be Christian, and I see no reason to doubt his word. I did note the Obama’s hesitancy to put up the White House Christmas Creche, to use the word “Christmas”, and the bending over backwards to “protect” people of the Muslim Faith from being painted with the same brush as the radical, fringe elements of that faith.
I am of the opinion, all of that was connected with his politics, i.e. one world government, all religions being equal with each other–but under that one world government. I saw indications that this was his strongest belief–man/politics over God, at least for this planet. I studied President Obama’s politics and disagreed with him on nearly everything. I had high hopes for that Presidency, but in the end, rated it as a failed Presidency. He disappointed me politically over and over and over again. But then I am more libertarian, and no one could accuse President Obama of that.
Sure, go on, but now tell us how his politics and how he governs as President should be viewed unfavorably by Christians. Is it his vision of tax reform, his attack on the chemical plants in Syria, his plans to meet with Kim Jung Un, his insistence on a border wall, the deportation of illegal criminal aliens, and immigration reform.
There are many women in President Trump’s administration who are highly regarded and highly placed by the President. Politically, he treats women the same as men, including taking political punches at them exactly like he takes his political punches at men. Should he treat female political opponents as weaker and unable to defend themselves because, after all, they are females?
1 Like
They’re just giving vile/non religious/cheating Trump a pass because he’s the politician they like. It’s not stealth or anything.
You cannot and should not dismiss a 35 year movement as if it never happened. The Religious right was a real thing. To suddenly suffer amnesia and argue that it is only how the person governs that matters is unbecoming to say the least
1 Like
Like most Christians, I am not part of the “Religious Right.” And, for outsiders to be telling Christians how they must think and act in the political arena or consider themselves unchristian is nothing more than a political bullying tactic at best, and heading towards the fascism of a self-appointed group telling others what they must think or do. I think it best for non-Christians to stay out of our business.
I would advise fellow Christians to be aware of the “Divide and Conquer” tactic being employed here. This is as much an attack on Christianity (see how weak Christianity is to support this person) as well as an attack on the American people who dare to elect a person not approved by the political powers that be and the political powers that wannabe.
People need to be able to reasonably discuss policy–the strengths and the weaknesses of each policy–so that needed tweaks may be made. That is two parties working together instead of two parties at civil war with each other. I believe most Americans want the former, not the latter.
1 Like
you should review the events of the old testament, in which you will find that even heathen rulers who protected God’s chosen people were deemed “good”. [quote=“FreeAndClear, post:25, topic:57, full:true”]
You cannot and should not dismiss a 35 year movement as if it never happened. The Religious right was a real thing. To suddenly suffer amnesia and argue that it is only how the person governs that matters is unbecoming to say the least
[/quote]
Go to most majority Muslim countries. Exhibit homosexual behavior in public. Get a visit in the night from men who say they are devout Muslims. They are carrying a Koran.
Go to most majority Christian countries. Exhibit homosexual behavior in public. Get a visit in the night from men who say they are devout Christians. They are carrying a Bible.
Which is the scarier scenario?
As well as you should watch Jerry Falwell spinin his grave
You are probably right in that most Christians are not the religious right. This thread was directed specifically at that loud minority that spent three decades bringing morals back to the whit house only to go “ah ■■■■ it we lost let’s go crazy”
Just as it is not possible to put all Christians in with Christians who will not have blood transfusions, it is not possible to put all Christians into the Religious Right. I am not suffering amnesia, I am reminding everyone of reality. Separation of Church and State makes it possible to be in agreement with a President’s political stances even when many voters have only been married once, have not committed adultery, and pretty much live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Do you want the Religious Right to agree that divorce and remarriage and adultery are now okay? Or, do you want the Religious Right to denounce President Trump? Perhaps both?
why? I reference the bible and you reference some radio/TV preacher. Do you think there is some equivalence?
The Religious Right wanted someone who advocated freedom of religion, who was not afraid to say, “Merry Christmas”, is against Planned Parenthood…
They got that. True, in the same package was a man who has been married three times and has had numerous affairs. We see that group supported that candidate over the one who was married once, is politically correct during the holidays, and favors Planned Parenthood.
Given all of the above, the Religious Right endorsement of the Trump candidacy as opposed to the Clinton candidacy isn’t all that strange.
Currently the Muslim countries.
Now, many blacks in our country got drug out of their homes in the middle of the night by practicing Christians in years past and were burned to death, lynched and hung from a tree (while their kids sometimes watched).
We’ve even had homosexuals brutalized or killed.
You are redifining the religious right as a movement. You are doing it for obvious reasons. The war on Christmas is new. Freedom of religion was part of their platform but nowhere near their primary goal.
The religious right endorsement of Trump is strange because - morals.
Because this isn’t about the bible. This is about a political movement. He wasn’t some radio/tv preacher. lol.
Did you want to start a separate thread about the white Democrat night riders who terrified black people? Or how about the high tech lynching - as mentioned by Clarence Thomas - that Democrats do today?
This post was in reference to the sarcastic mention of “scary” muslims, as though criticism of Obama and his Muslim ties was all based on some imaginary and irrational fear.
i forgot to ask “Hoo” are you from the old board?
Actually, this thread is about Christians (who in the past have supported horrible things) finally starting to turn on/question Trump (who is vile, a cheater, a liar, etc)
Or did you want to start a new thread on what Muslims do to gays in other countries?
I’ve said it here before, Trump is very much the living embodiment of the seven deadly sins. He brashly displays each and every one of them.
1 Like
