Totally agree with this, though I don't refer to myself as right wing. Trump was the best candidate out there IMHO. Not a good candidate at all, but our best option.

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

Yes, I'm on board with the liberal playbook now, as far as political leadership; I;ve caught up to you and your fellow libs. It still matters as far as eternal destination.

I also find your argument completely ruhtarded, which is: since you don't have any morals, you get to hold your head high and criticize those who do when they fail to demand their politicians live up to them. Liberalism is a mental illness, for sure.

You and your fellow atheists who infest this board are free to carry on now!

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

This is the problem. Principal, especially those that guide us as followers of Christ, get thrown out the window so you can win popularity contests. As a Christian, what the "other" side of the political spectrum does has no bearing on how we are to be witnesses of Christ. We aren't called to win silly elections. We are called to witness to His Kingdom, and we certainly don't do that by stooping to the level of those you disagree with politically, especially when that level is antithetical to the Christian faith.

So great, you win a popularity contest, but you damage your witness in the process. The ends do not justify the means. That mindset has no home in the Christian faith. The means must look like Christ, regardless of what the ends are. What does it profit man to win every election, but lose his own soul? If you speak with the tongues of men and angels, but don't have love, then you're nothing but a noisy gong. So, can we Christians at least drop this "well, they're doing it too" rationalization, as it is incompatible w/ our faith?

This goes to the problem w/ Jeffress. He doesn't want a leader who looks like Christ. He's even said that. He wants his team to win. That's not really something a supposed minister of God should ever say or think.

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

This is the problem. Principal, especially those that guide us as followers of Christ, get thrown out the window so you can win popularity contests. As a Christian, what the "other" side of the political spectrum does has no bearing on how we are to be witnesses of Christ. We aren't called to win silly elections. We are called to witness to His Kingdom, and we certainly don't do that by stooping to the level of those you disagree with politically, especially when that level is antithetical to the Christian faith.

So great, you win a popularity contest, but you damage your witness in the process. The ends do not justify the means. That mindset has no home in the Christian faith. The means must look like Christ, regardless of what the ends are. What does it profit man to win every election, but lose his own soul? If you speak with the tongues of men and angels, but don't have love, then you're nothing but a noisy gong. So, can we Christians at least drop this "well, they're doing it too" rationalization, as it is incompatible w/ our faith?

This goes to the problem w/ Jeffress. He doesn't want a leader who looks like Christ. He's even said that. He wants his team to win. That's not really something a supposed minister of God should ever say or think.

---

If Jeffries had said he wants a leader that looks like Christ you and everyone else would be criticizing him for wanting to install a theocracy.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

I'm not bothered by the hypocrisy so much as the extent to which partisan winning matters so much that ANY standards of personal or professional decency go out the window. There's a difference between a "flawed" person and a truly terrible human being. It seems conservative evangelicals have decided that a disgusting, amoral, bully of a man is worth it if they get their policies in place. That's beyond hypocritical, that's nihilistic.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

This is the problem. Principal, especially those that guide us as followers of Christ, get thrown out the window so you can win popularity contests. As a Christian, what the "other" side of the political spectrum does has no bearing on how we are to be witnesses of Christ. We aren't called to win silly elections. We are called to witness to His Kingdom, and we certainly don't do that by stooping to the level of those you disagree with politically, especially when that level is antithetical to the Christian faith.

So great, you win a popularity contest, but you damage your witness in the process. The ends do not justify the means. That mindset has no home in the Christian faith. The means must look like Christ, regardless of what the ends are. What does it profit man to win every election, but lose his own soul? If you speak with the tongues of men and angels, but don't have love, then you're nothing but a noisy gong. So, can we Christians at least drop this "well, they're doing it too" rationalization, as it is incompatible w/ our faith?

This goes to the problem w/ Jeffress. He doesn't want a leader who looks like Christ. He's even said that. He wants his team to win. That's not really something a supposed minister of God should ever say or think.

---

If Jeffries had said he wants a leader that looks like Christ you and everyone else would be criticizing him for wanting to install a theocracy.

---

This is flat-out wrong. I want all to embrace and look like Christ. I would never want someone, especially someone that professes to be a follower of Christ, to look like anyone but Christ. This, though, is another rationalization. Jeffress chose the tribalism of partisan politics over the way of Christ. That much is clear when he says he wants his leader to look nothing like Christ.

Oh, and who cares if others would have been critical of him for that? He should say something that is incompatible w/ Christianity because some people might criticize him for saying that which is "right"? Say and do what's right in a spirit of love regardless of what others say.

Oh, and about this lie from the first page:

Quote:

---

I know that you could care less about things like religious freedom, freedom of speech, 2nd amendment and probably get all warm and fuzzy at the thought of religious persecution, but the vast majority of Christians do not.

---

I think religious freedom is great. I think freedom of speech is great. I don't get all warm and fuzzy at the thought of religious persecution. I'm not willing to sacrifice my mission as a follower of Christ and citizen of His Kingdom for those things, though. I'm not willing to resort to means that are antithetical to our faith in order to avoid persecution.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

I'm not bothered by the hypocrisy so much as the extent to which partisan winning matters so much that ANY standards of personal or professional decency go out the window. There's a difference between a "flawed" person and a truly terrible human being. It seems conservative evangelicals have decided that a disgusting, amoral, bully of a man is worth it if they get their policies in place. That's beyond hypocritical, that's nihilistic.

---

Wait, are we talking about Trump or Clinton here?

I see no evidence that he is a terrible person, rather than just another flawed person who's flaws happen to rather public.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

I'm not bothered by the hypocrisy so much as the extent to which partisan winning matters so much that ANY standards of personal or professional decency go out the window. There's a difference between a "flawed" person and a truly terrible human being. It seems conservative evangelicals have decided that a disgusting, amoral, bully of a man is worth it if they get their policies in place. That's beyond hypocritical, that's nihilistic.

---

Wait, are we talking about Trump or Clinton here?

I see no evidence that he is a terrible person, rather than just another flawed person who's flaws happen to rather public.

---

Really? No evidence? Nothing based on his treatment of contractors, his treatment of women, his adultery, his mocking of people, his draft dodging, his bullying, his racism? Got it. I feel as though we live on different planets at this point.

---

So.... he is different from the Clintons (for example) how?

You only care about these things because you perceive them as a cudgel that you can hammer the right with. Otherwise, you wouldn't give a hoot about any of those. Draft Dodging is a badge of courage, if you're a leftist. Hanging around with open anti-semites or black supremacists? No problem as long as you have a "D" by your name. Mistreating women? Who cares as long as they're pro-abortion. Shall I go on?

The reason we have Trump now is because the left has long embraced "Ends Justify the Means". You can't complain about us finally giving in and electing an immoral man when your side has long mocked the notion of morality to begin with.

Quote:

---

The reason we have Trump now is because the left has long embraced "Ends Justify the Means". You can't complain about us finally giving in electing an immoral man when your side has long mocked the notion of morality to begin with.

---

And since this is the R&P board, how is adopting an "ends justify the means" approach compatible w/ the faith you hold? Just because you believe the other side does it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. If your means are antichrist, then the ends are irrelevant. The ends are nothing but noisy gongs. Jeffress, who is the actual topic of the thread, embraces antichrist means to achieve some desired ends, and he damages the witness of the church every time he does so.

As a Christian, how do you justify your comment? Our actions, as the church, aren't "justified" by the actions of the world. They're "justified" solely by how the reflect Christ and His Kingdom.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

The reason we have Trump now is because the left has long embraced "Ends Justify the Means". You can't complain about us finally giving in electing an immoral man when your side has long mocked the notion of morality to begin with.

---

And since this is the R&P board, how is adopting an "ends justify the means" approach compatible w/ the faith you hold? Just because you believe the other side does it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. If your means are antichrist, then the ends are irrelevant. The ends are nothing but noisy gongs. Jeffress, who is the actual topic of the thread, embraces antichrist means to achieve some desired ends, and he damages the witness of the church every time he does so.

As a Christian, how do you justify your comment? Our actions, as the church, aren't "justified" by the actions of the world. They're "justified" solely by how the reflect Christ and His Kingdom.

---

I've stated several times here and elsewhere that I did not vote for Trump. What I'm doing is trying to express why people may have felt the need to either reluctantly vote for Trump or why some may have done so enthusiastically.

And my repeated point to you is the same people who mock you for your general christian belief are not going to care one iota had evangelicals been mass bernie bro as opposed to trumpkin.

Blue star my friend.

Quote:

---

I've stated several times here and elsewhere that I did not vote for Trump. What I'm doing is trying to express why people may have felt the need to either reluctantly vote for Trump or why some may have done so enthusiastically.

And my repeated point to you is the same people who mock you for your general christian belief are not going to care one iota had evangelicals been mass bernie bro as opposed to trumpkin.

---

I didn't say you voted for Trump, but what you're doing is justifying an "ends justify the means" mindset for Christians. That is a mindset that has no place in the Christian faith. But, this thread is about Jeffress and his comments. Do you have any issue with a supposed minister saying that he wants a leader that looks nothing like Christ, even if that leader claims to be a Christian? Do you have any issues with a supposed minister saying gross immorality is "totally irrelevant" to whether or not they support a person to hold power over others?

And I get your point, but what you seem to miss is that whether or not those people will mock a believer whether they support Trump or Bernie is irrelevant to what that believer is supposed to do and how their life is to reflect Christ. Who cares if they still mock? Followers of Christ will always be mocked. That doesn't justify us willfully failing to reflect Christ in word and deed.

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

This is the problem. Principal, especially those that guide us as followers of Christ, get thrown out the window so you can win popularity contests. As a Christian, what the "other" side of the political spectrum does has no bearing on how we are to be witnesses of Christ. We aren't called to win silly elections. We are called to witness to His Kingdom, and we certainly don't do that by stooping to the level of those you disagree with politically, especially when that level is antithetical to the Christian faith.

So great, you win a popularity contest, but you damage your witness in the process. The ends do not justify the means. That mindset has no home in the Christian faith. The means must look like Christ, regardless of what the ends are. What does it profit man to win every election, but lose his own soul? If you speak with the tongues of men and angels, but don't have love, then you're nothing but a noisy gong. So, can we Christians at least drop this "well, they're doing it too" rationalization, as it is incompatible w/ our faith?

This goes to the problem w/ Jeffress. He doesn't want a leader who looks like Christ. He's even said that. He wants his team to win. That's not really something a supposed minister of God should ever say or think.

---

If Jeffries had said he wants a leader that looks like Christ you and everyone else would be criticizing him for wanting to install a theocracy.

---

This is flat-out wrong. I want all to embrace and look like Christ. I would never want someone, especially someone that professes to be a follower of Christ, to look like anyone but Christ. This, though, is another rationalization. Jeffress chose the tribalism of partisan politics over the way of Christ. That much is clear when he says he wants his leader to look nothing like Christ.

Oh, and who cares if others would have been critical of him for that? He should say something that is incompatible w/ Christianity because some people might criticize him for saying that which is "right"? Say and do what's right in a spirit of love regardless of what others say.

---

Still waiting on you to denounce Christians that praise MLK, who may have committed actual heresy by claiming Jesus wanted him to have sex with a prostitute instead of his wife.

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

garc said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I'm going to assume the personal actions and beliefs of Democratic candidates will NEVER again be attacked by evangelical conservatives based on how they defend Trump.

---

Liberals don't care about personal morality, so why does it matter to you if its brought up? It's not like it affects your vote.

Liberals don't care and never have, but because they assume their opponents do, its OK for liberals to point out shortcomings. That's some high road right there. Alinsky tactics are dead to conservatives, thank goodness!

---

Well as long as we're all on the same page. You can never again criticize the behavior or beliefs of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Obama. You've decided personal beliefs and morality mean nothing and the ends justify the means.

---

You come across as somewhat irritated that the right has given up the "Lose with dignity" approach that has worked so well for them in the past.

---

The right has played the moral superiority card for decades from the "moral majority" to the "silent majority" to Clinton's impeachment to arguments against LGBT rights as somehow leading to an immoral society. Now, suddenly, none of that matter when it comes to Trump. It's purely an argument of means to an end. It's pathetically hypocritical.

---

We've played that card and it doesn't work, because your side doesn't care. The left has claimed "As long as banging interns on the side doesn't effect his job performance who cares what he does". You come across as less bothered by the hypocrisy than you are by the fact your candidate lost.

While I would prefer that our leadership be men (and women) of utmost personal integrity, that is not the world we live in.

---

This is the problem. Principal, especially those that guide us as followers of Christ, get thrown out the window so you can win popularity contests. As a Christian, what the "other" side of the political spectrum does has no bearing on how we are to be witnesses of Christ. We aren't called to win silly elections. We are called to witness to His Kingdom, and we certainly don't do that by stooping to the level of those you disagree with politically, especially when that level is antithetical to the Christian faith.

So great, you win a popularity contest, but you damage your witness in the process. The ends do not justify the means. That mindset has no home in the Christian faith. The means must look like Christ, regardless of what the ends are. What does it profit man to win every election, but lose his own soul? If you speak with the tongues of men and angels, but don't have love, then you're nothing but a noisy gong. So, can we Christians at least drop this "well, they're doing it too" rationalization, as it is incompatible w/ our faith?

This goes to the problem w/ Jeffress. He doesn't want a leader who looks like Christ. He's even said that. He wants his team to win. That's not really something a supposed minister of God should ever say or think.

---

If Jeffries had said he wants a leader that looks like Christ you and everyone else would be criticizing him for wanting to install a theocracy.

---

This is flat-out wrong. I want all to embrace and look like Christ. I would never want someone, especially someone that professes to be a follower of Christ, to look like anyone but Christ. This, though, is another rationalization. Jeffress chose the tribalism of partisan politics over the way of Christ. That much is clear when he says he wants his leader to look nothing like Christ.

Oh, and who cares if others would have been critical of him for that? He should say something that is incompatible w/ Christianity because some people might criticize him for saying that which is "right"? Say and do what's right in a spirit of love regardless of what others say.

---

Still waiting on you to denounce Christians that praise MLK, who may have committed actual heresy by claiming Jesus wanted him to have sex with a prostitute instead of his wife.

---

Yes, you've been repeating this "whataboutism" for most of the thread. First, it has no bearing on the wrongness of Jeffress' comments. It's just a weak attempt at a deflection. Second, I have no problem with a minister, or Christian, saying good things about good things that Trump says or does. I have an issue with saying a professed Christian's immorality is "totally irrelevant". I have an issue with a supposed minister saying he wants a professed Christian to look nothing like Christ. If one of these Christians who you're alluding to were to say that MLK's immorality is "totally irrelevant" to their support, then they are just as wrong as Jeffress here.

Nobody is demanding perfection from people like Trump or MLK. When there's something worthy of praise, great. When there's something that should be rebuked, then rebuke it. Jeffress isn't serving as a prophetic witness against evil. He's saying it doesn't matter as long as it comes from his tribe. Jeffress is dismissive about immorality from professed Christians within his political tribe. I believe that is wrong, no matter what group you are part of.

You realize this took place in 2006 and has been publicly denied by Trump right? That's why your jimmies being rustled is so absurd. You decided that he's guilty (on your own) and that you're going to judge every Christian that doesn't condemn it.

And 'whataboutism' is more bs to dismiss arguments out of hand without engaging them (like sea-lioning). Truly, if the morality of a leader matters to the Christian that praises him, this is an easy litmus test of your conviction that no immoral action can be ignored. You've side stepped it twice now. Is it really so hard to say MLK was a scumbag and that Christian leaders shouldn't praise him without reservation simply because he achieved the right social good?

Quote:

---

You realize this took place in 2006 and has been publicly denied by Trump right? That's why your jimmies being rustled is so absurd. You decided that he's guilty (on your own) and that you're going to judge every Christian that doesn't condemn it.

---

Again, I've already said I have no idea if it's true. My issue is with Jeffress saying that even it it's true, it's "totally irrelevant". My issue is with Jeffress saying he wants a professed Christian to look nothing like the Sermon on the Mount. This thread isn't about Trump. It's about Jeffress and his comments. I'm not judging Christians that don't condemn Trump because of the accusations. I'm criticizing a supposedly Christian minister who said that even if they're true, they're "totally irrelevant". I have no issue with a Christian saying, "I have no idea if they're true, so I'll refrain from comment". That's not what Jeffress did. You keep trying to make this about Trump. It's not. It's about Jeffress.

If, say, Shane Claiborne said whether or not Hillary was responsible for people dying at Benghazi, it would be "totally irrelevant", I'd have the same reaction.

Quote:

---

And 'whataboutism' is more bs to dismiss arguments out of hand without engaging them (like sea-lioning). Truly, if the morality of a leader matters to the Christian that praises him, this is an easy litmus test of your conviction that no immoral action can be ignored. You've side stepped it twice now. Is it really so hard to say MLK was a scumbag and that Christian leaders shouldn't praise him without reservation simply because he achieved the right social good?

---

If a Christian leader said that immoral actions by MLK are "totally irrelevant", then they're wrong. Just like Jeffress. I'm not sure what you're mad about here. My position is consistent.

Quoting Jeffries in the article:

Quote:

---

Jeffress, who is an evangelical adviser to the president, said Trump's personal behavior isn't an issue.

"Evangelicals knew they weren't voting for an altar boy when they voted for Donald Trump," he said. "We supported him because of his policies and his strong leadership."

In fact, when it comes to those behaviors, he suggested there's pretty much nothing Trump can do to alienate him as long as he delivers on those policies.

---

I don't see Jeffries saying anything remotely similar to:

Quote:

---

My issue is with Jeffress saying he wants a professed Christian to look nothing like the Sermon on the Mount.

---

In fact, the article does not discuss Trumps alleged Christian standing. So...

The Sermon on the Mount comment was last year and not part of these latest ridiculous comments from Jeffress. It's just another comment that displays a pattern of commentary that is an affront to Christian teaching.

Here he is saying that Christians should have a religious litmus test when voting, but that was when he backed Carson.

When he backed Trump, he took the exact opposite position:

Quote:

---

"You know, I was debating an evangelical professor on NPR, and this professor said, 'Pastor, don't you want a candidate who embodies the teaching of Jesus and would govern this country according to the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount?'" Jeffress said. "I said, 'Heck no.' I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation"

---

So, he wants to vote for Christians, but wants those Christians to look nothing like Christ when they're in office. And he's supposed to be a minister of God? Do you not see any issue w/ his comment? He wants a professed Christian in the WH, but he doesn't want that professed Christian to look like Christ.

RetiredAg said:

---

The Sermon on the Mount comment was last year and not part of these latest ridiculous comments from Jeffress. It's just another comment that displays a pattern of commentary that is an affront to Christian teaching.

---

The only link that 15 seconds of Googling gave me was a statement where Jeffries says the sermon on the mount is not a template for governance.

So a little help on the exact context where you link Jeffries, Trump, and the sermon on the mount.

Links are above. He wants Christian voters to have a religious litmus test when voting, thereby voting for professed Christians. Then, once in office, he doesn't want them to look like Christ, as if we can abandon our witness to Christ when we wear the government hat. Given he's of the camp that buys Trump's claim to be a Christian, what he's really saying he wants a professed Christian to look nothing like Christ. He preaches a compartmentalized and Americanized "faith".

But, he's gotten what he's wished for, so there's that.

RetiredAg said:

---

Links are above. He wants Christian voters to have a religious litmus test when voting, thereby voting for professed Christians. Then, once in office, he doesn't want them to look like Christ, as if we can abandon our witness to Christ when we wear the government hat. Given he's of the camp that buys Trump's claim to be a Christian, what he's really saying he wants a professed Christian to look nothing like Christ. He preaches a compartmentalized and Americanized "faith".

But, he's gotten what he's wished for, so there's that.

---

The bits that I've read of him don't seem to point that, rather he seems to be a guy who has changed his views, but whatever dude. You do you.

Quote:

---

but whatever dude. You do you.

---

Will do.