Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Puhleeze. They went insane over Bill Clinton and his moral failings - which made him 'unfit to be a leader' in their words.
Today - they twist themselves into a pretzel to excuse every sleazy payoff to a former porn star.
Guess what? Trump is neither a born again Christian nor he is 'striving to improve himself'.
Why is this an inappropriate analogy? Bill Clinton committed these indiscretions while he was in office, and was then impeached for lying and obstruction in relation to what he committed. In other words he was criticized for not abiding by basic standards of probity.
Probity of office doesn't mean that POTUS should act as moral head of the church, which is both unconstitutional and anti-christian.
"Christians" who follow men like George W. Bush (warmonger, pathological liar) and Trump (pathological liar, sleazeball) shouldn't even really be called "Christians", but who really knows what a "Christian" is these days? In my opinion, most people who identify as such use it as an excuse for bad behavior, their own personal "get out of jail free" card to be redeemed whenever they get caught.
I certainly have nothing against true Christians, these people are wonderful. I certainly have nothing against Christianity, as it is taught by Jesus. The people who call themselves "Christian", on the other hand, are some of the absolute worst examples of what an actual Christian should act like, and I generally avoid them, if possible.
Yep. And there are many such pretend Christians here on C-D, who express views their Christ would abhor and condemn. It's like they took the name of the religion without bothering to read the words of the man they profess to revere.
Indeed, the nice thing about the 'President Trump is a newly minted born-again Christian' and so his past is irrelevant, is that this philosophy never becomes dated.
For instance, suppose that it came out next week that Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks had an affair (which had been whispered about) that Melania discovered, hence the sudden departure of Ms. Hicks from the White House.
Some people would condemn Mr. Trump for committing adultery while in the White House.
Ah! But our resident Christians would draw out that philosophy like a gun from a holster. "Mr. Trump has asked forgiveness for his sin, and so it is in the past and not relevant".
Why is this an inappropriate analogy? Bill Clinton committed these indiscretions while he was in office, and was then impeached for lying and obstruction in relation to what he committed. In other words he failed to abide by basic standards of probity of office.
That doesn't mean that POTUS should act as moral head of the church, which is both unconstitutional and anti-christian.
No one is saying he should act as the moral head of the church. We are saying that it's blatant hypocrisy for the so-called Christians to condemn the actions of one while excusing the actions of another, simply because of the party letter after his name.
These pretend Christians are supporting a man whose actions are every bit as reprehensible, and then some, as Bill Clinton's. But they vilify the Democrat and "give mulligans" to the Republican.
You might fool some people with your vigorous defense of Donald Trump, but you're not fooling your God.
Both Trump and the lowest and loudest of the Evangelical mouth-breathers are an embarrassment to thinking (libertarian) conservatives; but their presence gives the elitist (pseudo)-liberals fits and demonstrates the Fascism to which all Leftists subscribe. Not a bad trade overall.
Yep. And there are many such pretend Christians here on C-D, who express views their Christ would abhor and condemn. It's like they took the name of the religion without bothering to read the words of the man they profess to revere.
What I've always found interesting in my observations over the years is this:
1) Most Atheists and Agnostics know more about the teachings of Christ than those who identify as Christian.
2) Most of the first 2 groups lead a more "Christian" lifestyle (for example, see Matthew 25:40) then those who identify as Christian.
Many alleged Christians who do not follow politics closely tend to be more in accordance with the teachings of Christ. While this is good, it also makes them easy prey for the shysters and charlatans in their churches, as well as Fox News and the plethora of fake "Christians" with websites.
Those "Christians" who profess a deep support of Trump are, most likely, fraudulent. Just look at how many Trump supporters on this forum would call themselves "Christian", there is abundant evidence.
You mean this wall, which Trump stood next to, exactly the way in which evangelicals expect a newly-minted Christian to behave?
Your "link" goes to a blank page. What a great analogy to Donald's supposed "newly-minted Christian" status. A blank screen, because there's literally nothing there to support such an absurd claim.
Yep. And there are many such pretend Christians here on C-D, who express views their Christ would abhor and condemn. It's like they took the name of the religion without bothering to read the words of the man they profess to revere.
No doubt, there are some truly good people in this world who try to live a life that Jesus would have wanted them to live, but I gave up on organized religion 60 years ago, because of the hypocrisy I saw in the church. They would pray for forgiveness on Sunday, and sin like mad all weak. Even our Sunday school teacher was having an affair with another church member, and all the good "Christians" in the church looked the other way.
For people who, out of one side of their mouth claim to be Christians, and out of the other side they support a man who is the polar opposite of anything Christian, it is simply amazing.
No one is saying he should act as the moral head of the church. We are saying that it's blatant hypocrisy for the so-called Christians to condemn the actions of one while excusing the actions of another, simply because of the party letter after his name.
These pretend Christians are supporting a man whose actions are every bit as reprehensible, and then some, as Bill Clinton's. But they vilify the Democrat and "give mulligans" to the Republican.
You might fool some people with your vigorous defense of Donald Trump, but you're not fooling your God.
Do we have substantive evidence (outside of the vain imagination of CNN and WaPo) that Trump, while president, committed perjury and obstruction of justice? No. Do we have substantive evidence that Clinton did so. Yes. That's where your analogy fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
Your "link" goes to a blank page. What a great analogy to Donald's supposed "newly-minted Christian" status. A blank screen, because there's literally nothing there to support such an absurd claim.
It works for me. Perhaps you're imagining a blank screen out of wishful thinking?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
