Do you defend Trump's infidelity?

[Terraceth]

I don't follow you. Are you asserting we Christians don't have to use discernment? Paul could have been a political supporter of Nero? John the Baptist of Herod--so long as their positions on social issues lined up correctly? Can we support anybody without regard to their character then?

Well, in this hypothetical situation where Nero and Herod were up for re-election, who were their opponents? One can never truly judge a candidate in a vacuum, one must know what the other choices are.

[rogue06]

First of all, I don't defend Trump's "corrupt m0ral (sic) nature at every turn", so you can shove that lie where the sun doesn't shine.

Keep the NAMBLA-supporting source in mind.

[KingsGambit]

Well, in this hypothetical situation where Nero and Herod were up for re-election, who were their opponents? One can never truly judge a candidate in a vacuum, one must know what the other choices are.

At some point, though... I mean, who's it going to take for you to prefer Nero?

[Terraceth]

At some point, though... I mean, who's it going to take for you to prefer Nero?

Well, this question was posed with the supposition that his "social issues" would line up with that of the early Christians, which would logically mean he wouldn't have done things like killing said early Christians.

[Tassman]

First of all, I don't defend Trump's "corrupt m0ral (sic) nature at every turn", so you can shove that lie where the sun doesn't shine. I will, however, defend him against baseless, political attacks, such as the lie that Trump is a serial liar.

Um, “Obama born in Kenya”, “largest ever inauguration crowd size” to name but two Trump lies. Trump is a compulsive liar, it’s pathological.

I've seen those lists published in partisan rags like The Washington Post and The New York Times, and they're nothing more than smear jobs that deliberately take Trump's words out of context, or spin the original statement beyond all recognition so they can disingenuously call it a "lie".

Well, MM, you would know all about "partisan rags".

As for Trump's admitted infidelity, no, I don't condone it, but neither am I going to pretend that it somehow makes him unfit to be President.

Come now. “Trump-Loving Christians Owe Bill Clinton an Apology. Conservative evangelicals were unwilling to offer forgiveness to a Democrat who asked for it. But they have freely offered it to a Republican who doesn’t want it.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...pology/495224/

Heck, Jackie Kennedy was one of the most cheated on First Ladies in US history, but liberals treat JFK like he's a hero, even going so far as to excuse his serial adultery.

It’s the hush money and legally dubious means of paying it that’s the main problem, not Trump’s odious sexual history.

[Roy]

Well, in this hypothetical situation where Nero and Herod were up for re-election, who were their opponents? One can never truly judge a candidate in a vacuum, one must know what the other choices are.

Perhaps you should assume they're competing against each other.

[guacamole]

I appreciate your consistency, and I share your view expressed in a subsequent post that our lives ought not be compartmentalized, such that our faith is sandboxed away from all else.

Nonetheless, I am not convicted to live things out in the same fashion as you. I accept the reality that ours is not and never has been a "Christian" nation, and I can't expect to only vote for Christians, and "proper" ones at that. If I had convictions anywhere close to that, I would have to join the ranks of those believers whose consciences do not permit them to participate in the political process at all.

It's getting close to non-participation for me. More and more I see the vast majority of politicians exhibiting the spirit of the Anti-Christ. Nevertheless, I respect other Christians convictions--that doesn't mean that I won't try to be persuasive, however.

[guacamole]

Again, it depends on what you mean by "support".

In the most casual sense, it means voting for. In a more strict sense, it might mean engaging in active persuasion for others to agree to and follow a given politician's policies.

Does voting for someone who's political and social ideology you agree with make you party to every sin that person has ever committed?

You aren't party to every sin the person has ever committed; however, you are party to policies they enact and abuses they commit thereafter, whether or not you support those in particular or not--especially when, like Trump, they have broadcast their wickedness well in advance. Therefore, for me, character is a concern--because I do not want to be party to those problems. If I cannot trust a politician with comparatively lesser things-like fidelity to a spouse-then why should I trust other oaths, including the oath of office, that they might have made. Character was a concern for me with the Clintons, and it is likewise a concern for Trump.

Trump is nakedly immoral. This doesn't mean that he is some how more honest than the Clintons--or any other politician who has endeavored to keep their sin out of the public view. It's that he is brazen. I think he has been, and will continue to be, even less beholden to traditional morality and decency than the "average" politician.

For me, I don't look for a perfect candidate; rather, I vote for the person who I think will do the most good in office. What else should I do?

For me, I'm tired of casting my lot in with the lesser of two evils.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

Well, in this hypothetical situation where Nero and Herod were up for re-election, who were their opponents? One can never truly judge a candidate in a vacuum, one must know what the other choices are.

Or just refuse to support wickedness by not voting for it. We don't have to vote the for lesser of two evils. We choose to.

[Terraceth]

For me, I'm tired of casting my lot in with the lesser of two evils.

Have you considered third parties?

[KingsGambit]

Have you considered third parties?

I'm part of a third party that's tearing itself apart right now

[Teallaura]

Or just refuse to support wickedness by not voting for it. We don't have to vote the for lesser of two evils. We choose to.

Not voting for either is effectively voting for both.

[KingsGambit]

Not voting for either is effectively voting for both.

Briefly operating under the fiction that a single vote is meaningful in any way, you could say that voting for neither decreases both percentages in a way that decreases a mandate.

[demi-conservative]

Can't we differentiate between Christians supporting non-Christian politicians like Trump (and, yes, Trump automatically qualifies as a non-Christian because he said that he never asked God for forgiveness, unless something has changed since then)

Libs like to have it both ways, 'Trump is immoral non-Christian!!!!', also holding non-Christian Trump to Christian standards at same time. Sad!

[KingsGambit]

Libs like to have it both ways, 'Trump is immoral non-Christian!!!!', also holding non-Christian Trump to Christian standards at same time. Sad!

Trump claims to be a Christian, so yes, it is fair to hold him to the standard of what he claims.