Legalize pep pills for the masses
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Legalize pep pills for the masses
That’s nothing! Have you seen that guys hair?
Well some of that may be true. Evangelicals are obviously not voting based on individual virtues.
They are aware that Trump is a fallible human being and I’m sure they pray for him as such on his shortcomings but so far he has demonstrated to them that his recent tendencies align the most with with the two basic criteria of religious freedom and the rights of the unborn.
They have their own pragmatic policy voting preferences just like anyone else.
I know I don’t vote for Trump based on virtue. There would be no reason to vote for him on that alone. I vote policy.
It’s a safe bet to say that the majority of people telling you NOT to vote for Trump based on his moral failures are atheists.
(yes, religion does not equal morals, but the ones the atheists are harping on against Trump are religious in basis.)
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
Nice coherent rebuttal.
Not sure when the last time someone saw his hair.
I understand why. The two were intertwined at the time referred to in Mark 12, at least as to the local government.
...and as Jesus was praising what the widow did and said nothing about the Temple treasury, I have a hard time calling what, y'know, Christ was talking about.....unchristian. This is why that statement confused me.
Anyhoo.....
Evangelicals have in the past talked about candidate morality, particularly related to the likes Bill Clinton and his perjury and sexual assaults. The left actually used this against them, much as you are trying to do now, but some wise men realized that God uses imperfect vessels to do his will. The evangelicals have learned, successfully so, that an imperfect vessel like Trump can do more to stop abortion than many of the very godly. A vote cast is not for the most Godly candidate, but rather for the one that will do Gods will.
The left is very anti-religious. That you can write that is unreal. Just look at how the left constantly attacks freedom of religious thought, from the Colorado baker, to social media companies banning their speech.
Evangelical here.
Policies. I care about the policies a politician advocates. Would be great if the person had pristine personal morality, but it doesn't seem like we can have both at this time.
That being the case, since I'm voting for a governmental position, not a pastor, I'll vote for the one who advocates what I believe to be better policies.
For me, it's really pretty simple.
If we want to step back in time and talk about Clinton...which seems like a waste of time, I didn't like many of his policies and his moral failings were a tool to weaken him and keep his policies from being implemented. I don't understand why this is complicated.
Policies. I care about the policies a politician advocates. Would be great if the person had pristine personal morality, but it doesn't seem like we can have both at this time.
That being the case, since I'm voting for a governmental position, not a pastor, I'll vote for the one who advocates what I believe to be better policies.
For me, it's really pretty simple.
If we want to step back in time and talk about Clinton...which seems like a waste of time, I didn't like many of his policies and his moral failings were a tool to weaken him and keep his policies from being implemented. I don't understand why this is complicated.
That's not what he said.
Paraphrased, render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. A vote is Caesars and is rendered to Caesar to best achieve Gods will.
The left has long played a game that evangelicals have fallen for so many times, the game is use evangelicals morals against them to take out candidates that might be more successful in implementing the evangelicals political positions. When the Trump/Billy Bush tape came out it was then I realized that conservatives as a whole were past eliminating good candidates for normal human failings.
Evangelicals have learned that if they misapply the "let he without sin cast the first stone" to politics they have no one to send to DC to cast stones.
You're right in that demanding infallibility is unreasonable. I think the argument against Trump though is more about degree, how far from an evangelical he is. He barely puts up a pretense of being religious.
That said I imagine a lot of politicians are far less religious than they put on. They realize 'athiest' is the one label no one gets elected wearing.
As far as Trump's faith, all I'll say is that I have hope for him.....but then again, I have hope for everyone.
Jimmy Carter was in the same denomination as me and I think Bill Clinton still is....I would never have voted for Carter and didn't vote for Clinton even though they were in the same "tribe", so to speak. I did vote for Romney and what religion he is was a complete not factor for me. I never questions President Obama's faith as that is not for me to do.
Honestly, it bothers me when religious figures cozy up to candidates in an election context. I really admired Billy Graham- how he preached the Gospel, undiluted and would show respect for and meet with leaders of all kinds of religious background, never compromising his message. Franklin could stand to take a page.
Policies.
Last edited:
He, in his goalpost moving glory, seems to think otherwise, unless you're hung up on the word "majority" too. And FYI, a "safe bet" isn't what I'd call 51%. Nevertheless, my question stands, how can one assume that someone else is atheist, because they (someone who isn't holding themselves up a worthy to lead others), believe that others shouldn't vote for Trump due to his moral failings.
I don't think its not fair to avoid saying something about a politician if it isn't that person's own rejection of something that isn't a widely held belief, or isn't even a requirement to not have the position.
ETA:
That isn't directed at any one INGOer, but rather a commentary on the current discussion.
ETA:
That isn't directed at any one INGOer, but rather a commentary on the current discussion.
- Status
