Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

[lilpixieofterror]

Not talking about you specifically pixie. I'm talking about the Evangelical Community as a whole prostituting itself with Donald Trump as the reason my focus is on Trump on these pages. It's not just that Trump is bad. And make no mistake, he is bad. As far as I can tell he is probably worse than any predecessor in our life time. And I'd be willing to say that on these pages. But that is not what keeps me coming back and continuing to try to make the point. What keeps me coming back is Christians excusing, participating in covering up what he is doing that is bad, ignoring it, justifying it, claiming the only reason it is reported is MSM 'bias'.

Because that turns the evangelical community into an Objective with no substantive excuse Hypocrites with a capitol H. We pretend we are against gay marriage because it is 'immoral' all the while standing behind Trump as he declares war on the poor, as he lies, cheats, undermines the rule of law, commits illegal acts trying to win the next election and so on and so forth. It doesn't fly. You try telling an immigrant that has lost her child to our immigration policies that you are 100% in Trumps camp on that, and oh, by the way, Jesus loves you and I'm praying for you. Or a gay person they shouldn't act out their sexual urges all the while excusing the Access Hollywood tape, or fighting against the women that have been sexually harassed by Trump.

Capitol H pix. Capitol H.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

And exactly where in that post did I talk about 'defending them'. I'm talking about the church defending Trump against the consequences of his misdeeds all the while accusing others of immorality.

Here it is again:

Not talking about you specifically pixie. I'm talking about the Evangelical Community as a whole prostituting itself with Donald Trump as the reason my focus is on Trump on these pages. It's not just that Trump is bad. And make no mistake, he is bad. As far as I can tell he is probably worse than any predecessor in our life time. And I'd be willing to say that on these pages. But that is not what keeps me coming back and continuing to try to make the point. What keeps me coming back is Christians excusing, participating in covering up what he is doing that is bad, ignoring it, justifying it, claiming the only reason it is reported is MSM 'bias'.

Because that turns the evangelical community into an Objective with no substantive excuse Hypocrites with a capitol H. We pretend we are against gay marriage because it is 'immoral' all the while standing behind Trump as he declares war on the poor, as he lies, cheats, undermines the rule of law, commits illegal acts trying to win the next election and so on and so forth. It doesn't fly. You try telling an immigrant that has lost her child to our immigration policies that you are 100% in Trumps camp on that, and oh, by the way, Jesus loves you and I'm praying for you. Or a gay person they shouldn't act out their sexual urges all the while excusing the Access Hollywood tape, or fighting against the women that have been sexually harassed by Trump.

Capitol H pix. Capitol H.

Who are 'they', and where did I say anything about you 'defending them'?

The focus is on the hypocrisy of supporting Donald Trump when he does seriously wrong things.

Jim

---

BTW - it is always a Christian's duty to defend against evil when possible. So it is your job to defend the oppressed, the poor, the destitute, the abused - because you claim Christ Jesus as your Lord.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

And exactly where in that post did I talk about 'defending them'. I'm talking about the church defending Trump against the consequences of his misdeeds all the while accusing others of immorality.

Who are 'they', and where did I say anything about you 'defending them'?

This is your strawman, you tell me.

BTW - it is always a Christian's duty to defend against evil when possible. So it is your job to defend the oppressed, the poor, the destitute, the abused - because you claim Christ Jesus as your Lord.

[oxmixmudd]

You were changing your posts as I responded to them Pix. So the least you could do is quit pretending my responses where to your posts in their final form.

Being reminded of one's moral obligations should never be considered 'guilt tripping'. We are commanded to remind one another of what is good and true. Of what our obligations are as Christians. And we are commended to yield to them if we follow Christ.



Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

You were changing your posts as I responded to them Pix. So the least you could do is quit pretending my responses where to your posts in their final form.

Being reminded of one's moral obligations should never be considered 'guilt tripping'. We are commanded to remind one another of what is good and true. Of what our obligations are as Christians. And we are commends to yield to them if we follow Christ.

[oxmixmudd]

Assaulting women is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position.

Breaking the law of the land is immoral. If one is a Christian, that is the case unless the law of the land is itself immoral. So unless you wish to argue that asking foreign agents to help you win your election violates God's law, there is no other position on that as well.

Abusing the poor is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position. We can debate if Trumps policy constitute abuse of the poor is the only option. We can't argue that abusing the poor is ok.

Adultery is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position.

Inciting people to hatred, to revenge, is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position.

--

The only possible debate would be over IF Trump is doing those things. But there can be no debate over whether or not Christians supporting or justifying those things is immoral or wrong.


Jim

[Sam]

The choice in 2016 was:

Trump or Clinton.

What one at least promised to leave Christians alone to practice their beliefs?

Clinton proposed that Christians operating businesses should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Trump proposed massive surveillance of Muslim communities, curtailing the ability of Muslims to include religious rules in civil disputes with the consent of both parties -- a legal accommodation Christian and Jewish sects enjoy --, and proposed the outright ban of Muslim travel to the United States.

A non-bigoted person who was interested in religious liberty as a principle and not merely out of paranoid self-interest shouldn't have a difficult choice between those two.

--Sam

[Sam]

Thus trying to get Sam to understand multiple predictions, got it wrong, continues to be a waste of time.

The original assertion was that polling is useless because "the polls" said that Clinton would win.

Since then, the argument (to be gracious) has morphed numerous times but the forced innumeracy remains the same: the idea that a prediction equates to a certainty and a predicted Clinton victory makes no allowance for a possible Trump victory.

An innumerate argument at the start, an innumerate argument now.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Assaulting women is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position.

Breaking the law of the land is immoral. If one is a Christian, that is the case unless the law of the land is itself immoral. So unless you wish to argue that asking foreign agents to help you win your election violates God's law, there is no other position on that as well.

Abusing the poor is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position. We can debate if Trumps policy constitute abuse of the poor is the only option. We can't argue that abusing the poor is ok.

Adultery is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position.

Inciting people to hatred, to revenge, is immoral. If one is a Christian, there is no other position.

--

The only possible debate would be over IF Trump is doing those things. But there can be no debate over whether or not Christians supporting or justifying those things is immoral or wrong.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

The original assertion was that polling is useless because "the polls" said that Clinton would win.

Since then, the argument (to be gracious) has morphed numerous times but the forced innumeracy remains the same: the idea that a prediction equates to a certainty and a predicted Clinton victory makes no allowance for a possible Trump victory.

An innumerate argument at the start, an innumerate argument now.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Clinton proposed that Christians operating businesses should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Trump proposed massive surveillance of Muslim communities, curtailing the ability of Muslims to include religious rules in civil disputes with the consent of both parties -- a legal accommodation Christian and Jewish sects enjoy --, and proposed the outright ban of Muslim travel to the United States.

There was no Muslim ban, stop accepting lies.

A non-bigoted person who was interested in religious liberty as a principle and not merely out of paranoid self-interest shouldn't have a difficult choice between those two.

--Sam

Somebody covered his ears and screamed a lot last night. Enjoy going to your state approved Church Sam.

[Sam]

Again, this is an argument that would result in a failing grade in a freshman high school math class. You should reconsider it.

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

You - again - are not reading clearly. There is nothing in that post that is an assertion.

Jim

[Sam]

Last I checked, Trump's 2016 campaign site still featured an entire page dedicated to his proposed Muslim ban. And plenty of "religious freedom" Christians voted for him while he was proposing it.

And anyone who did owns it and will own it forever. Anyone trying to claim that Trump represents religious freedom, even now, is either lying to themselves or others.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Again, this is an argument that would result in a failing grade in a freshman high school math class. You should reconsider it.

--Sam