Do you defend Trump's infidelity?

[guacamole]

You are correct. I retract what I said earlier about it being your word.

I was looking for clarification on your question, which I didn't feel like you gave. I have since offered scriptural support for my opinion.

The rest of this thread has basically involved you dancing around the point

If you find my attempts to be careful in discussion wearisome, feel free to ignore my posts.

and launching into what I believe are ill-founded and mean-spirited attacks against Trump with the implication that anybody who voted for him will be judged by God for it,

:No: I didn't say that anyone who voted for him will be judged by God for it. I even reiterated what I said in my first post in this thread in my last post to you.

Nope. I have not once stated that I am immune to a similar judgement. Try not to put words in my mouth.

If compartmentalize your Christian life, deal with it. If not, good job. My point to you was about your use of the phrase "political philosophy."

fwiw,
guacamole

[Cow Poke]

Nothing, I don't think there's any real disagreement here, except for how this applies to voting.

Yeah, now THAT is a challenge!!!

For that, let's consult Elections 2:27 "...and when thou voteth, enter into thy closet to vote, and judge thee which candidate thou despiseth least...."

[carpedm9587]

I wonder if any liberals will tell us that it's only sex and therefore nobody's business

Well - on this topic I am fairly liberal. So...it's only sex, and nobody's business.

Well - technically, it's Melania's and Trump's business.

[carpedm9587]

On second thought, I'd like to expand this thread's scope: please, comment on Trump's character in general. Do you condemn anything other than his infidelity?

• His lying
• His bullying
• His misogyny
• His need to get even
• His name calling
• His duplicity
• His racism
• His general immaturity

[carpedm9587]

Trump is a yankee.

There, I said it!

[carpedm9587]

Not voting for either is effectively voting for both.

I'm very curious about the logic that leads to this conclusion...

[carpedm9587]

In what way?



Not every politician seems to be of the same moral fiber as Trump. Some seem better. Some seem worse. I'm not asking for saints, simply reasonably honest people trying to do a reasonably honest job.



I cannot accept that thinking for myself. The way I see it, if I know a person is a scoundrel, and yet I trust them anyway and they reward my trust with scandalous behavior, then it's on me.

fwiw,
guacamole

As usual, I find myself in admiration of your values.

[Mountain Man]

As usual, I find myself in admiration of your values.

What you mean is that you agree with him.

What would be noteworthy is if you admired the values of someone you didn't agree with.

[carpedm9587]

What you mean is that you agree with him.

So many of you folks seem to love to tell other people that they think/mean/feel. Of course I don't agree with him. I'm atheist, remember? None of his statements about God/Christianity/Bible have anything to do with me.

The value I was admiring was his insistence on not compromising his ethic for the sake of a "less of two evils" vote.

What would be noteworthy is if you admired the values of someone you didn't agree with.

You want me to admire the values of someone who's values I don't agree with?

[Sparko]

Well who was corret concerning our judging of others, Jesus or Paul?

neither was "corret" since that is not actually a word.

[Sparko]

Read the preceding 11 verses. Paul is talking about a very specific issue that was happening in the church, and verse 12 does not grant a blanket license for Christians to arbitrarily judge each other.

when guac said "they will be judged" he wasn't talking about other Christians judging them either. He was talking about God judging them. We will all face God when we die and have to answer for what we did, good or bad even though we are saved.

[Sparko]

This might be preaching to the choir, but I'll throw in my (judgmental) two cents:

I feel like the point of the analogy Jesus gave in the beginning of Matthew 7 gets missed for the first thing he said, which was, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged." He immediately follows that up with an analogy about removing a speck of dust from a brother's eye, and how absurd is it to do so when you have a log in your own. (hilarious mental image, btw) He goes on to say, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then

correct. He was saying "Don't judge hypocritically"

[One Bad Pig]

So many of you folks seem to love to tell other people that they think/mean/feel. Of course I don't agree with him. I'm atheist, remember? None of his statements about God/Christianity/Bible have anything to do with me.

The value I was admiring was his insistence on not compromising his ethic for the sake of a "less of two evils" vote.

So you admire his values, but don't agree with him, yes?

You want me to admire the values of someone who's values I don't agree with?

That's not what MM was saying.

[KingsGambit]

If they can't manage an FB group, how's this 'everybody builds a section of road' idea supposed to work?

You thought I was referring to the LP? I'm about as far from libertarian as it gets.

[Mountain Man]

when guac said "they will be judged" he wasn't talking about other Christians judging them either. He was talking about God judging them. We will all face God when we die and have to answer for what we did, good or bad even though we are saved.

Well, yes, we will all be judged by God, but will we necessarily be judged because we voted for the "wrong" person? Or at least who guacamole thinks is the "wrong" person? That's what I'm not certain about. I mean, yes, if we vote for someone who openly declares that they're going to use the authority we give them to do something immoral then that's probably on us, but to vote for someone in good faith who you think will do good despite certain unrelated moral failings in their life? I can't see us being judged for that.