Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

Quote:

---

You've missed the point and I'm not sure how. We get that you don't like Graham, baptists, MQB, and the politics board. The point is that when more principled people are treated the same way, why should you believe the criticisms? You're read the fable about the boy who cries wolf, right? That's the press. And you to a certain extent.

---

I agree with this. I care about character, but since it seems like Bush's second term, every Republican is either a racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It didn't matter who it was or how upright the person was. It makes me tune them out, even if they may have a point.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The effects of Trump's presidency outweigh the effects of his personal shortcomings by quite a bit.

---

Yes, but the Christian faith isn't one where the ends justify the means. Politically, he's done some good things. I have never denied that. But this isn't the politics board. This is the R&P board, so the personal character and actions of one who claims Christ is of greater import with regards to the conversation.

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

---

I too am an anarchist. And your explanation about one being the "party of Christians" is a cop out. There are plenty of Christians in both camps. You are being tribal while telling people to not be tribal.

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

---

I too am an anarchist. And your explanation about one being the "party of Christians" is a cop out. There are plenty of Christians in both camps. You are being tribal while telling people to not be tribal.

---

Not a cop out at all. Yes, there are Christians in both camps, but one is most identified with Christianity than the other. That's not even really debatable. I do not support either tribe.

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

---

I too am an anarchist. And your explanation about one being the "party of Christians" is a cop out. There are plenty of Christians in both camps. You are being tribal while telling people to not be tribal.

---

Not a cop out at all. Yes, there are Christians in both camps, but one is most identified with Christianity than the other. That's not even really debatable. I do not support either tribe.

---

Most identified by who? What's the %? If it's 60/40, where are your 40% threads about the other tribe you don't support? You say you don't support either tribe, but only one tribe you post about.

AstroAg17 said:

---

How did you feel about Romney's character?

I really liked Romney as a guy. I think that he's what the Republican Party should be. A moral Christian (sort of) whose personal life is above reproach.

I think Pence is similar, although Pence takes the "above reproach" part to an extreme extent that many people can't relate to. That's why he's mocked for not putting himself in situations where he might be unfaithful.

---

Romney and Pence both seem like men of sound character, from what I've seen of them.

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

---

I too am an anarchist. And your explanation about one being the "party of Christians" is a cop out. There are plenty of Christians in both camps. You are being tribal while telling people to not be tribal.

---

Not a cop out at all. Yes, there are Christians in both camps, but one is most identified with Christianity than the other. That's not even really debatable. I do not support either tribe.

---

Most identified by who? What's the %? If it's 60/40, where are your 40% threads about the other tribe you don't support? You say you don't support either tribe, but only one tribe you post about.

---

This thread wasn't even about a particular tribe. It was simply about the subject of character and integrity in society.

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

---

I too am an anarchist. And your explanation about one being the "party of Christians" is a cop out. There are plenty of Christians in both camps. You are being tribal while telling people to not be tribal.

---

Not a cop out at all. Yes, there are Christians in both camps, but one is most identified with Christianity than the other. That's not even really debatable. I do not support either tribe.

---

Most identified by who? What's the %? If it's 60/40, where are your 40% threads about the other tribe you don't support? You say you don't support either tribe, but only one tribe you post about.

---

This thread wasn't even about a particular tribe. It was simply about the subject of character and integrity in society.

---

Can you point to one thread you started where you have "abhorred" something a Christian liberal or Democrat did?

I have to log off, see you guys tomorrow.

AstroAg17 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Yes, but the Christian faith isn't one where the ends justify the means. Politically, he's done some good things. I have never denied that. But this isn't the politics board. This is the R&P board, so the personal character and actions of one who claims Christ is of greater import with regards to the conversation.

---

There is no "cost" from the Christian perspective for voting for trump. You're not choosing him as a role model, you're choosing him as a leader.

Trump is going to be the same guy whether he is president or not. A vote is not necessarily an endorsement of character. You're choosing someone to represent your interests, and trump is the choice whom most Christians tend to agree with.

---

I get that. And I'm not saying the problem is voting for Trump, or anyone in particular. My views on voting are no secret, but that's not the issue here. I think the Graham quotes on Clinton, then Trump, are a better picture of what I'm talking about. 20 years ago, personal character mattered. Now it doesn't. Did character stop being something that mattered to Graham, or did it ever really matter in the first place? The thread was about the shift in importance we place, as a society, on personal character.

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

I find abhorrent no matter what tribe spews it.

---

I don't come here often, but I can tell which tribe you are apart of. Or at least which one you "abhor" more. Even though you say "both tribes do it". It seems you only bring attention to one.

---

Well, given I'm an anarchist, I can assure you that I don't belong to either of the two political tribes to which you seem to be alluding. If it seems like my focus tends to be towards one, it's because that one tends to hold themselves out as the party of Christians and Christian values moreso than the other. As a result, they are held to the standard of the faith they claim. I try not to judge those who don't profess Christ, but do speak against those of the other tribe who profess Christ yet support that which is abhorrent to our faith.

---

I too am an anarchist. And your explanation about one being the "party of Christians" is a cop out. There are plenty of Christians in both camps. You are being tribal while telling people to not be tribal.

---

Not a cop out at all. Yes, there are Christians in both camps, but one is most identified with Christianity than the other. That's not even really debatable. I do not support either tribe.

---

Most identified by who? What's the %? If it's 60/40, where are your 40% threads about the other tribe you don't support? You say you don't support either tribe, but only one tribe you post about.

---

This thread wasn't even about a particular tribe. It was simply about the subject of character and integrity in society.

---

Can you point to one thread you started where you have "abhorred" something a Christian liberal or Democrat did?

I have to log off, see you guys tomorrow.

---

Where are the threads I've started here about what Republicans have done? I mean, the closest one gets is my criticism of men like Jeffress, but that isn't because he's a Republican. It's because he's peddling a nationalistic gospel that I believe is not compatible w/ the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I've gone back and searched the threads I've started over the past year. The only ones that could remotely be considered "about Republicans" are here:
Trump and Twain: An Anti-Liturgy and a War-Prayer
Jeffress at it again

The first one is about militarism and was spawned by talks of the military parade proposed, and would have applied no matter who the president was. The second was about a prominent pastor saying things that were incompatible with our faith. Those are the only two over the past year that are even remotely close. Most of my other threads are about Palestine, Orthodoxy questions, or various faith-related articles.

AstroAg17 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Yes, but the Christian faith isn't one where the ends justify the means. Politically, he's done some good things. I have never denied that. But this isn't the politics board. This is the R&P board, so the personal character and actions of one who claims Christ is of greater import with regards to the conversation.

---

There is no "cost" from the Christian perspective for voting for trump. You're not choosing him as a role model, you're choosing him as a leader.

Trump is going to be the same guy whether he is president or not. A vote is not necessarily an endorsement of character. You're choosing someone to represent your interests, and trump is the choice whom most Christians tend to agree with.

---

Though if you are saying character matters in the context of leadership, then who you vote for as a leader is also to some extent an endorsement of their character. The idea that you can divorce character and leadership is nebulous.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The effects of Trump's presidency outweigh the effects of his personal shortcomings by quite a bit.

---

I don't know, I think Trump's personal shortcomings are quite a bit more troubling than anything he might do with his political power. Thankfully we have a system of checks and balances that will hopefully hold the reigns on his political power. On the other hand, I believe that his presidency emboldens those who share some of his more vile views, and given the droves they are coming out in that poses a far bigger threat to the overall health of this nation than the more direct effects of the office of the President.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Since character plays into who gets votes, the results of an election will correlate with character. But to say that election results are necessarily an endorsement of character is unjustified, as it ignores the inputs of all other factors.

---

It's a tacit endorsement of personality at a minimum

You know, I don't agree with the folks saying "well, people have always been good or bad." While I think this is true, I don't think it is relevant.

People are people, always have been, always will be. Granted. But society changes, has changed. There has been a general coarsening of society for a couple of centuries. I'm not necessarily talking about the lower rungs of society, because there has always been a disparity. But the upper and middle classes in general held themselves to standards which have been lowered, and are lowering.

For some time now the idea of what we do being inextricable from who we are has been under attack. This is a classical idea that was held for centuries, but has largely been disregarded by modernists and postmodernists. The idea that no one is born morally virtuous, but that moral character and the virtues in general are acquired through action and hard work in general brings around a kind of smug smirk in society.

Look at Governor Coke's advice to the students at A&M. "Let your watchword be duty and know no other talisman of success but labor. Let honor being your guiding star in your dealings with your superiors, your fellows, with all. Be as true to a trust reposed as a needle to the pole. Stand by the right, even to the sacrifice of life itself, and learn that death is preferable to dishonor." This would never be said today. There's so many quaint, old fashioned concepts here. But at the core is the idea that the virtuous man can only be determined by virtuous action, and that virtue is more important than anything in life.

Von Goethe said "Behavior is the mirror in which everyone shows their image," but I think it is even deeper than that. Behavior is who you are, and continued behavior is who you will become. Our society doesn't seem to believe this any more - or perhaps they don't care whether or not it is true.

AstroAg17 said:

---

That was meant from the perspective of his supporters. Christians (should) care about abortion wayyyyy more than non-Christians. Protestants believe that 3/4 of a million government sanctioned murders occur each year.

If one party was pro-genocide and one party was anti-genocide, and the president was able to appoint multiple members to the court that arbitrates the legality of the genocide, would your vote rest on which candidate was an unfaithful spouse?

Of course not. That's what I mean when I say that the benefits to a Christian (or catholic specifically) should by far outweigh any criticism of Trump's personal life.

---

I suppose that works as an argument for the actual election, but doesn't really explain how he passed muster in the primaries.

dargscisyhp said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

That was meant from the perspective of his supporters. Christians (should) care about abortion wayyyyy more than non-Christians. Protestants believe that 3/4 of a million government sanctioned murders occur each year.

If one party was pro-genocide and one party was anti-genocide, and the president was able to appoint multiple members to the court that arbitrates the legality of the genocide, would your vote rest on which candidate was an unfaithful spouse?

Of course not. That's what I mean when I say that the benefits to a Christian (or catholic specifically) should by far outweigh any criticism of Trump's personal life.

---

I suppose that works as an argument for the actual election, but doesn't really explain how he passed muster in the primaries.

---

It also wouldn't explain the defense of his behavior after the election.

RetiredAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Everyone bemoaning post modernism and lack of faith as a standard seems to forget the obvious, that the OP was like inspired by reading the politics board, one which is predominantly Christian.

---

I would suspect OP disagrees vigorously with most of Forum 16 posters regarding POTUS, foreign policy, criminal justice policy and other issues which he can elaborate himself.

---

I'm pretty sure I disagree with everyone on Forum 16, but that's because we have fundamental disagreements on the role, or necessity, of the state itself. I'm not sure what that disagreement has to do with integrity and character. We can disagree and still both have integrity. We can disagree and both be people of character. Since the partisan realm was brought up, here's a good example of this shift on the importance of character that I'm kind of referring to:

---

From a realistic perspective, I would agree. The state is necessary IMHO to counter an always aggressive institutional church which seeks to exert increasing control over the lives of believers while at the same time seeks to protect itself institutionally and to protect its priestly caste/bureaucracy and privileges. The state is there to preserve my civil rights and liberties. An example of this would be the Australian detective who attempted to prosecute a Catholic priest in 1972 for pedophilia. Unfortunately, the police bureaucracy was unduly influenced by the church and the investigation was quashed. The same holds true for any Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical/Charismatic Church which holds undue influence. And the legal strictures imposed by the state are necessary to insure that men and women (no angels, we) are to be sanctioned for such things as unlawful violence, theft and civil offenses. But you likely have a differing view and that is fine. But Forum 16 is a place where people vent their frustrations and post interesting political news. Some of it affects my civil rights and liberties, so I am vigorous to follow those. Some are just comedic and ironic, such as the James Woods tweet thread. Some are conspiratorial. I read those because nuggets of truth can be found in the most outlandish sounding conspiracies. Today's absurdities, in other words, may well be tomorrow's facts.

Quote:

---

The state is necessary IMHO to counter an always aggressive institutional church which seeks to exert increasing control over the lives of believers while at the same time seeks to protect itself institutionally and to protect its priestly caste/bureaucracy and privileges.

---

This is completely and utterly the opposite of history. The 1st amendment is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

I mean, for me this kind of thought process is completely baffling.

Dr. Watson said:

---

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

it's not about integrity and character. If you're going to be called racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamaphobic, etc. no matter who you run eventually the only appeal is platform

---

It is about integrity and character when one is willing to overlook one's integrity and character simply because they may be "mistreated" no matter what. Integrity and character matter regardless of how one is treated. That's what separates high character/integrity people from low. So, in the example we've latched to unfortunately, we have Christian "leaders" doing a complete 180 on the subject simply because it's their "platform".

So you end up with someone like Graham to whom, 20 years ago, the character of a husband and father was an indicator of the level of trust one could hold in them, yet now it matters not. Not to mention the damage that people like Graham do to the witness of the church when their hypocrisy is put on full display.

---

You've missed the point and I'm not sure how. We get that you don't like Graham, baptists, MQB, and the politics board. The point is that when more principled people are treated the same way, why should you believe the criticisms? You're read the fable about the boy who cries wolf, right? That's the press. And you to a certain extent.

---

And you talk of me missing the point? This has nothing to do w/ "not liking" Graham, Baptists, MQB or the politics board. Nice strawmen though (odd too, given that nobody mentioned Baptists or MQB). This isn't about Trump, no matter how much you may try to make it so. This is about how we seem to have a decline in the emphasis on character and integrity in our society. Trump, Graham, etc are merely examples of this. Since this is somehow stuck on the political aspect, this is something that we see in both sides. Tribalism tends to be blinding though.

What am I crying wolf about? What criticisms am I believing that I shouldn't?

---

Now re-read my posts together and see if you can understand. Your questions aren't pertinent.

---

How about you try to discuss things without the condescension? That will be much more fruitful. Please explain to me, without the strawmen and falsehoods, what I'm missing. You said that I am "to a certain extent" crying wolf. Please explain.

---

It's not condescension. It's frustration. I've explained my stance quite a bit and you don't seem to put my responses together. When every candidate is treated the same regardless of actual character and integrity, the criticism is eventually disregarded. Hence the Romney and McCain references. Both were immintently better people derided as murderers and a great many other things. Look at how Pence has been treated for going out of his way to be above reproach in his marriage. Quite simply, it doesn't matter who has an R next to their name. They'll be slimed and mistreated. So why should people pay attention to it? Further the malfeasance and criminal behavior of those currently in power resisting and attacking trump from the DoJ and FBI undermine such character claims.

Beyond that you fundamentally disagree with the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. How could you ever accept what is viewed as a reasonable explanation by most, including a great many Christians? How will you ever be satisfied by the answer if you reject the basic premise?

---

Obama was accused of being a Muslim born in Kenya, trained at a madrassa, who was a postcolonial America-hater that idolized terrorists. Please stop pretending hyperbole only goes one way in American politics. What's pathetic is that the response on one side is to justify the idolizing of a terrible human being.

---

Accusations are a funny thing. Thanks for picking several that bear out as grounded in reality. How would you characterize reverend Wright and his sermons, if not postcolonial and American hating? And obama's pardon of actual terrorists while in office? Sounds like they were more than hyperbole to me.

Romney killing a woman with cancer via Bain? Or giffords getting shot because of a target on her district in a political graphic? Pence hating gays? Yeah that's a negative.

You still haven't actually addressed the argument though. My point was that in treating Romney, McCain and GWB so poorly that you made others tone deaf to your objections as all are imminently more principled that's trump. And all you can do is say, "but O"?

Dr. Watson said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

Since character plays into who gets votes, the results of an election will correlate with character. But to say that election results are necessarily an endorsement of character is unjustified, as it ignores the inputs of all other factors.

---

It's a tacit endorsement of personality at a minimum

---

Except it's not. Astro has a great example. If I can vote for a guy that pops off on twitter but saves a million lives, I think most Christians would do it and wouldn't think twice. Especially if the other option is standing by while the opposition is happy to see that number of deaths double or triple. Abortion used to be regarded by the left as a necessary evil but it's now such a badge of honor that it's joked about openly (Lena Dunham wished she'd had one at one point).

Or what about the tax cut? That makes adoption more of a possibility for us. Or fostering. As opposed to standing by while the opposing candidate would be content for Christian agencies to go out of business and strand a lot more children in fostercare.

It's so much more complex now than voting for character. I'm stuck with the consequences no matter what, but some make a real positive difference.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The state is necessary IMHO to counter an always aggressive institutional church which seeks to exert increasing control over the lives of believers while at the same time seeks to protect itself institutionally and to protect its priestly caste/bureaucracy and privileges.

---

This is completely and utterly the opposite of history. The 1st amendment is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

I mean, for me this kind of thought process is completely baffling.

---

Actually, the amendment was driven by concern over religion exercising secular power first and foremost.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The state is necessary IMHO to counter an always aggressive institutional church which seeks to exert increasing control over the lives of believers while at the same time seeks to protect itself institutionally and to protect its priestly caste/bureaucracy and privileges.

---

This is completely and utterly the opposite of history. The 1st amendment is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

I mean, for me this kind of thought process is completely baffling.

---

I'm not a history buff, but what I do know about the amendment and the founding fathers would beg to differ with your position. I write this post expecting you'll have good reason for your position and that i'll end up learning something. Anyway. . . .

I agree that within the 1st Amendment there is a protection of the church from the state. But, it also includes a prohibition on the state from acting as an agent for one church over another. James Madison, who authored the amendment, explicitly fought to keep religious and civil matters separated. Everything I've read about Madison is that he was indisputably motivated to protect civil matters from religious influence.

He vetoed bills that would have given public money to churches for charitable causes and bills that would pay teachers at particular Christian schools and a bill that would have given federal land to a Baptist church. These actions don't serve to protect any church, but rather to protect the state from being used as an agent for religious matters.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The state is necessary IMHO to counter an always aggressive institutional church which seeks to exert increasing control over the lives of believers while at the same time seeks to protect itself institutionally and to protect its priestly caste/bureaucracy and privileges.

---

This is completely and utterly the opposite of history. The 1st amendment is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

I mean, for me this kind of thought process is completely baffling.

---

I'm not a history buff, but what I do know about the amendment and the founding fathers would beg to differ with your position. I write this post expecting you'll have good reason for your position and that i'll end up learning something. Anyway. . . .

I agree that within the 1st Amendment there is a protection of the church from the state. But, it also includes a prohibition on the state from acting as an agent for one church over another. James Madison, who authored the amendment, explicitly fought to keep religious and civil matters separated. Everything I've read about Madison is that he was indisputably motivated to protect civil matters from religious influence.

He vetoed bills that would have given public money to churches for charitable causes and bills that would pay teachers at particular Christian schools and a bill that would have given federal land to a Baptist church. These actions don't serve to protect any church, but rather to protect the state from being used as an agent for religious matters.

---

Very much the concern. A big part of the Enlightenment was a reaction against the wars of religion of the 17th century. The idea of a church having power equal to or over a state was anathema to the framers.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

The state is necessary IMHO to counter an always aggressive institutional church which seeks to exert increasing control over the lives of believers while at the same time seeks to protect itself institutionally and to protect its priestly caste/bureaucracy and privileges.

---

This is completely and utterly the opposite of history. The 1st amendment is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

I mean, for me this kind of thought process is completely baffling.

---

The individual believer needs protection from the state AND the institutional church infringing upon his/her conscience. The church (and the Islamic equivalent) can be as oppressive as the state.