Christianity Today Op Ed

[rogue06]

Nope. Trump represents an existential thread to the basic elements of government and the integrity of our nation as a whole.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was the excuse presented by the Democrats for not wanting to wait for the courts to resolve the issue between Executive Privilege and Congressional subpoenas and why they had to pass at lightning speed this impeachment. And yet now we see that was yet another lie as they are stalling the process indefinitely.

[rogue06]

TDS is a derogatory gaslighting term implying a mental impairment in those that oppose Trump. I normally don't consider posts by people using the term worth responding to.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

[Charles]

Oh, so the pivot to the article's words was a deliberate non sequitur. Got it.

Always quite telling when you only adress one sentence and leave out important context. Here is the entire context. Feel free to adress what I actually wrote:

"Nope, I did not miss that. That was why I wrote: "It is not the words that are wrong but the application of them in which it is logically implied that if you are not a supporter of Trump, you are dishonest, a democrat or completely wrong." You seem to think that if I use words like "them" then I am doing what I blame others for doing. I have no problem with the use of those words. It is the "US vs. Them" logic that is the problem. The idea that if you find fault with Trump and think he should be removed, you must be one of "them", the Democrats. They (and yes I use that word and have explained why) do not leave room for them to be Republicans and Christians who honestly believe it as actually the best both for the Rebublican Party and for Christian testimony if Trump is removed.

Look at this sentence: "For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable." You see what happens? It is not that after Christianity Today has joined the critics that it is no longer "totally partisan". It is rather that in joining the attack (which in itself is a loaded word) they have become partisan. The idea that some could be in for a "totally partisan attack" while others honestly believe he should be removed is left out since it remains "a totally partisan attack" even after CT have joined and given their reasons for doing so."

[Tassman]

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

TDS is a derogatory term applied by Trump-supporting evangelicals rather than admit they have hitched their wagon to someone with a severely disordered personality about whom nothing good can be said categorically.

[NorrinRadd]

Here is a page with responses by some other Evangelicals in addition to Franklin.

I was particularly interested in the quote from CT honcho Galli, author of the article under discussion, where he characterizes himself and his associates as "elite" Evangelicals, and considers Trump supporters "alien."

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was the excuse presented by the Democrats for not wanting to wait for the courts to resolve the issue between Executive Privilege and Congressional subpoenas and why they had to pass at lightning speed this impeachment. And yet now we see that was yet another lie as they are stalling the process indefinitely.

When a person abuses the power of the office for personal gain, when he strong arms another government and runs businesses that cater to foreign diplomats, flying in the face of the emoluments clause. When he campaigns for the president to be above the law and willfully obstructs investigations. When he does these things even when it hurts national policy, even when it gives ground to our enemies.

Then impeachment and removal is not an excuse, it is the obligation of the house and then Senate.

[demi-conservative]

'We need lightning speed but now we stall indefinitely?'

CANNOT COMPUTE. BSOD.

REBOOT

REBOOTED

RELOAD ROUTINE, 'ORANGE MAN BAD'

Fixed.

[Cow Poke]

Is Christianity Today an "enemy of the cross"?

No, sir. That was referring to you and your ilk.

[Cow Poke]

Always quite telling when you only adress one sentence and leave out important context."

What it tells is that the person responding used their freedom of speech to reply to the specific portion they wished to address. That it annoys the stuffings out of the person complaining 'tells' that that person apparently thinks way too much of themselves.

[Cow Poke]

TDS is a derogatory term applied by Trump-supporting evangelicals rather than admit they have hitched their wagon to someone with a severely disordered personality about whom nothing good can be said categorically.

Actualy, the term was coined by psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer, who defined it as:

"a Trump-induced "general hysteria" among the chattering classes, producing an "inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology" in the President's behavior"

He fashioned it after the previous "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which he also coined.

[oxmixmudd]

That's what I would expect someone with Trump Detachment Syndrome to say.

Calvin ball. It's really easy to confirm a made upvdiagnosis. Because you can just make up the symptoms as you go along, matching them to whatever person you want to degrade using the term.

ETA. Oh look, I'm a time traveler- I answered MM before he posted the reply I'm answering

[Mountain Man]

TDS is a derogatory gaslighting term implying a mental impairment in those that oppose Trump. I normally don't consider posts by people using the term worth responding to.

That's what I would expect someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome to say.

[oxmixmudd]

Actualy, the term was coined by psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer, who defined it as:

"a Trump-induced "general hysteria" among the chattering classes, producing an "inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology" in the President's behavior"

He fashioned it after the previous "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which he also coined.

It doesnt matter who coined the latest taunt, it's still a taunt
- not a diagnosis.

[Charles]

No, sir. That was referring to you and your ilk.

So, let me get this straight. When CT says:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...om-office.html

They are not enemies of the cross. But when Tassman says:

US Evangelicals are already being equated with the moral standards exhibited by Trump.http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post693799

Then he is an enemy of the cross? You claimed the last part here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post693929

I can see Tassman taking it a bit further than CT but they are certainly making some clear statements as well.

[Charles]

What it tells is that the person responding used their freedom of speech to reply to the specific portion they wished to address. That it annoys the stuffings out of the person complaining 'tells' that that person apparently thinks way too much of themselves.

I am not sure you got the point. If they leave out a part that is import with regard to the point they make, you don't need to think way too much of yourself when you point that out. You don't even need to be in a situation in which "it annoys the stuffings out of" you. It is rather something that is very easy to do in order to show that they have a case they cannot support.