Christianity Today Op Ed

[little_monkey]

Yeah. An atheist that hasn't posted here in months is in such a frenzy to make his first post about an article written by a Christian organization he duplicates a thread about the same subject

It was not my intention to duplicate. I was thankful when that was pointed out. I posted that article here because I was interested to see what the members of this forum would say about it, even though I'm fully aware there are those like you who take pleasure in demeaning anyone who is not on their team - why I do not post frequently. Anyway, the discussion so far has been more around if Christians should engage or not on political issues , which is not what I had anticipated. I thought this passage on morality:


would provoke more discussion. I did not find that.

[mikewhitney]

It was not my intention to duplicate. I was thankful when that was pointed out. I posted that article here because I was interested to see what the members of this forum would say about it, even though I'm fully aware there are those like you who take pleasure in demeaning anyone who is not on their team - why I do not post frequently. Anyway, the discussion so far has been more around if Christians should engage or not on political issues , which is not what I had anticipated. I thought this passage on morality:
would provoke more discussion. I did not find that.

Either this editor votes for no presidents or in each case has chosen not to pay attention to these attributes found among all the politicians. I believe that most anyone here is concerned for the welfare of the people of this nation. So, it doesn't seem that the writer has some greater claim to defending this. There just wasn't anything of substance -- nothing to build an argument upon.

[Cow Poke]

Warrens answer to Holt said no such thing as "abortion on demand or abortion up to birth." And she supports Roe v Wade which is not abortion on demand or abortion up to birth. Try again!

You are absolutely clueless.

[RumTumTugger]

It's funny how a Christian organization, that publishes articles that probably few Christians on this board even read on the regular, has suddenly become a bastion of truth to the atheists here.

I used to have a subscription for the magazine this does not sound like the Christianity Today I used to read. it sounds like it was taken control of by the same people that took control of PCUSA the denomination my congregation separated from because they were following the World instead of God. Sigh another one bit the dust. My Dad would be rolling in his grave to hear they based their opinion on others peoples opinion instead of facts. they used to believe in getting the facts before wheighing in on anything.

[Terraceth]

I will not vote for Donald Trump unless the Democratic candidate is clearly worse than him. It will be lessor of two evils - again.

You may be interested in Brian Carroll.

[little_monkey]

Either this editor votes for no presidents or in each case has chosen not to pay attention to these attributes found among all the politicians. I believe that most anyone here is concerned for the welfare of the people of this nation. So, it doesn't seem that the writer has some greater claim to defending this. There just wasn't anything of substance -- nothing to build an argument upon.

I'm not sure if I understand your post, but since you didn't address the moral issue raised by the CT article, are you okay with Trump's moral stand, meaning are you okay that he asked a foreign leader to investigate for personal political gain, at the same time withholding funds vitally important to an ally in war with a formidable opponent like Russia? The CT article raises the point that if Christians don't call out the president on this, Christians will be accused of hypocrisy. Are you okay with that? Is the CT article way out of line with Christian issues?

[seanD]

I'm not sure if I understand your post, but since you didn't address the moral issue raised by the CT article, are you okay with Trump's moral stand, meaning are you okay that he asked a foreign leader to investigate for personal political gain, at the same time withholding funds vitally important to an ally in war with a formidable opponent like Russia? The CT article raises the point that if Christians don't call out the president on this, Christians will be accused of hypocrisy. Are you okay with that? Is the CT article way out of line with Christian issues?

His motive is a matter of opinion. But, man, you've missed out on months of debate and dozens of threads about this issue.

[mikewhitney]

I'm not sure if I understand your post, but since you didn't address the moral issue raised by the CT article, are you okay with Trump's moral stand, meaning are you okay that he asked a foreign leader to investigate for personal political gain, at the same time withholding funds vitally important to an ally in war with a formidable opponent like Russia? The CT article raises the point that if Christians don't call out the president on this, Christians will be accused of hypocrisy. Are you okay with that? Is the CT article way out of line with Christian issues?

I haven't seen any argument supporting these accusations -- and nothing in this accusation would be unique to any President of the last 40 years. It would be silly to make a decision based on this article. The article suggests that all Christian are guilty who have ever voted for a politician to office.

[little_monkey]

His motive is a matter of opinion. But, man, you've missed out on months of debate and dozens of threads about this issue.

Indeed, that's because I find very few worthwhile discussions. Your posts are a perfect example. No substance, just trivial and spiteful.

[Cow Poke]

Warrens answer to Holt said no such thing as "abortion on demand or abortion up to birth." And she supports Roe v Wade which is not abortion on demand or abortion up to birth. Try again!

Let's pretend you can have a reasonable discussion. The problem is that you probably have some nutty idea about what the phrase "abortion on demand" actually means, so let's consult a dictionary.

• the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.
• an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request.

No, let's see if you an give a straight snark-free answer. Does Warren support either of those?

[little_monkey]

I haven't seen any argument supporting these accusations -- and nothing in this accusation would be unique to any President of the last 40 years. It would be silly to make a decision based on this article. The article suggests that all Christian are guilty who have ever voted for a politician to office.

It's difficult to have an ironclad case when Trump has ordered those working for him to not testify, and freezing all documents. Both Nixon and Clinton did not go that road when the impeachment inquiry was on. As to the article, I did not find that it says that "all Christians are guilty who have ever voted for a politician to office." Also, you did not answer the CT moral issue raised in regards to Trump. Why?

[seanD]

Indeed, that's because I find very few worthwhile discussions. Your posts are a perfect example. No substance, just trivial and spiteful.

It's just that I thought the discussion about Christians and Trump and how they should handle that was just slightly more interesting than another side-tracked thread about a subject that has been discussed in other threads ad nauseam. But carry on.

[mikewhitney]

It's difficult to have an ironclad case when Trump has ordered those working for him to not testify, and freezing all documents. Both Nixon and Clinton did not go that road when the impeachment inquiry was on. As to the article, I did not find that it says that "all Christians are guilty who have ever voted for a politician to office." Also, you did not answer the CT moral issue raised in regards to Trump. Why?

I responded to every issue. There was no evidence of moral issues about Trump's presidency. All I saw was a rehash of the Dems talking points. We saw nothing in the impeachment except polling of people to see what terms would seem emotional -- so the Dems could try to tailor speeches toward those topics. As such, the article gave nothing to ponder over.
About your idea of Trump not cooperating ... he was quite cooperative in the Mueller fiasco. The Dems didn't find anything there that was impeachable. If all this work by the Dems has obtained no evidence against the President, we are left with accusations.
The article was an opinion piece -- not any substance to change one's mind.

[Sam]

Of course you do.



A pastor is charged with preaching the Gospel, not politics. Issues, not personalities.



Yeah, because people are too stupid to see who Trump is.



Gospel, not politics. Issues, not people.

Am I wrong in remembering your support or participation in the group of pastors purposefully violating the Johnson Amendment back in 2016?

[little_monkey]

I responded to every issue. There was no evidence of moral issues about Trump's presidency. All I saw was a rehash of the Dems talking points. We saw nothing in the impeachment except polling of people to see what terms would seem emotional -- so the Dems could try to tailor speeches toward those topics. As such, the article gave nothing to ponder over.
About your idea of Trump not cooperating ... he was quite cooperative in the Mueller fiasco. The Dems didn't find anything there that was impeachable. If all this work by the Dems has obtained no evidence against the President, we are left with accusations.
The article was an opinion piece -- not any substance to change one's mind.

The Mueller report is not part of this impeachment. There's no need to bring it up. It's irrelevant. And to his "not cooperating" that's quite a characterization, it's more of an obstruction, which is rightfully the second article of impeachment. Anyway, I get it you don't want to discuss the CT article. Nice talking...