'Disaster for our country': Evangelical Trump critics lament election outcome

[Hank77]

After reading this article, I scrolled down to read lots of comments on that web page about that article. I found that a large majority of comments were in significant disagreement with what Andrew Chang, Russell Moore, and David French said in the article.

I read the article in the Christian Post at the link in the OP. However, I couldn't find any comment section at all. Where did you see them, please?

 

[eleos1954]

That's another things that was devastated in this election. Confidence that polls are credible. They very much said that everywhere it was neck and neck between the two candidates. Seeing they were so wrong why does anyone allow them to cause stress before any election? Will we ever learn? Could it be that people weren't telling the truth in answering who they were voting for? Were they afraid of some retribution? If such was the mindset of massive amounts of people then what's that say about democracy in the States where people are terrified to tell the truth?

I don't get stressed out by them ... it ends up where it does and we get what we get. The one thing that needs to be done is everything possible to make sure there isn't any cheating going on and to limit any errors ...Americans all must be assured our election ballots are counted correctly.

Make voting day a national holiday.
Must be an American citizen to vote
Must provide a photo ID
Paper ballots
Should be both republican and democrat "overseers" at all polling places
Ballot collection boxes should only be installed at polling places and inside them

 

[jas3]

To be separate is not to be disobedient.

I have a feeling you wouldn't apply this argument to many other heinous crimes that are outlawed. There is no consistent argument for outlawing all forms of homicide except a particular kind of infanticide, especially from a Christian perspective.

 

[RDKirk]

I have a feeling you wouldn't apply this argument to many other heinous crimes that are outlawed. There is no consistent argument for outlawing all forms of homicide except a particular kind of infanticide, especially from a Christian perspective.

I don't get your point. The US government doesn't ever require Christians to commit homicide, not even being drafted in wartime, so that would never be a point requiring Christian disobedience.

 

[Bobber]

I don't get stressed out by them ... it ends up where it does and we get what we get.

Don't agree. Polls showing one candidate is way ahead can demoralize at least a certain percentage of folks to conclude why bother. Their sides already lost.

 

[jas3]

I don't get your point.

My point is that we should have laws against pre-birth infanticide just like we have laws against murder.

 

[RDKirk]

My point is that we should have laws against pre-birth infanticide just like we have laws against murder.

And those murder laws are state laws (with some very specific exceptions), which is the current case with abortion.

 

[jas3]

And those murder laws are state laws (with some very specific exceptions), which is the current case with abortion.

If a state decided to legalize murder, would you not support a federal murder ban?

Edit: there actually is a federal law against murder, and it can be prosecuted at the federal level:

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[RDKirk]

If a state decided to legalize murder, would you not support a federal murder ban?

That depends on the consequences of that support in other issues. Every government around the world and in history, even the very most vile in other manners, has banned murder. There are other ways for Christians to fight against immorality.

Edit: there actually is a federal law against murder, and it can be prosecuted at the federal level:

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

www.law.cornell.edu

As I already said, there are specific situations in which murder can be charged under federal law. 18 U.S. Code § 1111 specifically defines and penalizes murder under federal law. It applies in cases where the federal government has jurisdiction, such as on federal lands (national parks, government buildings) or in cases involving federal interests (e.g., murder of a federal official, murder in the military, cases affecting interstate or international concerns). Outside of specific federal jurisdictions, murder is defined by the states.

 

[Vambram]

I read the article in the Christian Post at the link in the OP. However, I couldn't find any comment section at all. Where did you see them, please?

I read that article on my smartphone, and scrolled down to the very end of the article after reading it. After a waiting a couple of seconds, the comment section opened up allowing me to read the comments.

 

[jas3]

That depends on the consequences of that support in other issues.

I would think that preventing the deaths of innocents would outrank pretty much all other issues in importance, but to each his own, I guess.

There are other ways for Christians to fight against immorality.

That statement is true, but is a far cry from your original statement that God would not use "Caesar's sword" to prevent or punish evil, which is flatly contradicted by Romans 13.

 

[RDKirk]

I would think that preventing the deaths of innocents would outrank pretty much all other issues in importance, but to each his own, I guess.

No one is "innocent." You are ranking the worth of human beings, which Jesus does not do. It's been said before, but people who "care" about the unborn but then don't care about them after they are born are simply hypocrites seeking some other goal than they assert.

That statement is true, but is a far cry from your original statement that God would not use "Caesar's sword" to prevent or punish evil, which is flatly contradicted by Romans 13.

No, I did not say that. I said: "Jesus would not support using Caesar's sword to prevent it, either. Jesus would not use carnal weapons, but the weapons of His own spiritual warfare."

 

[jas3]

No one is "innocent."

They are the most innocent of all people, insofar as a person can be innocent.

No, I did not say that. I said: "Jesus would not support using Caesar's sword to prevent it, either. Jesus would not use carnal weapons, but the weapons of His own spiritual warfare."

And unless you deny that Jesus is God, which I would assume you don't, then your statement that Jesus would not use the power of the state to accomplish His will is just wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

They are the most innocent of all people, insofar as a person can be innocent.

But not innocent. So, there is not a child life > any other human life in God's equation. But beyond that, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. What this means is that using Satan's weapons, even for a "good" purpose, will either backfire on us--at it has always done in the past--or we'll find God refusing to resupply us with ammunition for Satan's weapons.

And unless you deny that Jesus is God, which I would assume you don't, then your statement that Jesus would not use the power of the state to accomplish His will is just wrong.

And if you assert that Jesus and the Father are the same Person, then you're asserting a heresy.

We've had a whole new testament since then. What God does is what God does, but what the Church is to do is what Jesus instructed the Church to do, which is what we have in scripture. I can find plenty of evidence that Jesus eschewed human politics and that the Church is not to take part in human politics.

How about we try doing things Jesus' way?

 

[Mercy Shown]

One of the creators of a Christian nonprofit effort aimed at cultivating “better Christian politics” claims President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election is a “disaster” for the United States.

Curtis Chang, co-founder of The After Party, expressed profound emotional distress over the outcome, which saw Trump elected to a second term following strong support from Evangelicals, particularly white Evangelical voters.

The After Party, which Chang created with New York Times columnist David French and Russell Moore, editor-in-chief at Christianity Today magazine and former president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, was purportedly formed to help Christians develop a healthy and biblically informed understanding of political involvement, without promoting partisan viewpoints.

Continued below.

'Disaster for our country': Evangelical Trump critics lament election outcome

One of the creators of a Christian nonprofit effort aimed at better Christian politics claims President-elect Donald Trump s victory in the 2024 election is a disaster for the United States

www.christianpost.com

Simply looking at the players here, it screams liberal social gosple. What happened to their lofty morals when it comes to Harris’ sexual picadillos?

Selective morality is not in any way Christian. As a Christian, I would cease to vote if it was based on any candidates morality or religion. This whole pile of nonsense is akin to the campaign to defeat JFK by appealing to the bigotry against Catholics.

Frankly, it is all an exercise to make oneself superior to others.

 

[jas3]

But not innocent. So, there is not a child life > any other human life in God's equation.

You keep acting like I'm saying more than I'm actually saying. I'm not saying anything about the value of a child's life in comparison to an adult's life. There's not a political party in the US that has a platform demanding the right to kill adults. There is one that has a platform demanding the right to kill children. All I'm saying is maybe killing children shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society. I don't know why someone on a Christian forum would have a problem with that.

And if you assert that Jesus and the Father are the same Person, then you're asserting a heresy.

Again, attributing things to me I haven't said or implied. The Father and the Son share the divine will and the divine essence, so if God wills for the state to be His tool, Jesus wills for the state to be His tool. If God does use the state as His tool, then Jesus uses the state as His tool. Communicatio idiomatum works both ways.

We've had a whole new testament since then.

Romans is in the New Testament, and there's no change in God from the Old to the New anyway, which would be the heresy of Marcionism.

How about we try doing things Jesus' way?

I can assure you Jesus' way doesn't include allowing (or, God forbid, promoting) infanticide when you can do something to stop it.

 

[RDKirk]

Romans is in the New Testament, and there's no change in God from the Old to the New anyway, which would be the heresy of Marcionism.
I can assure you Jesus' way doesn't include allowing (or, God forbid, promoting) infanticide when you can do something to stop it.

But how you prevent it is the point I'm making. Attempting to prevent it with the use of Caesar's sword will fail because Satan's devices cannot defeat Satan's intentions. Only by the use of Jesus' methods can have any success.

 

[Hank77]

I read that article on my smartphone, and scrolled down to the very end of the article after reading it. After a waiting a couple of seconds, the comment section opened up allowing me to read the comments.

Ah, they don't show up on my PC and browser.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's very ironic that right wing Christians like to trot that verse out under Republican presidents, but completely forget it under Democrat presidents.

Scripture is prescriptive and proscriptive.

If Scripture says that government is a terror to the evildoer, and a government becomes a terror to those who do good, that government is committing sin, and is unjust.

Scripture is not telling us that whatever a government does is godly or moral, but rather is telling us what a government should be.

When the government fulfills it's role properly, the citizens flourish.

Out of the last 16 years, 12 were spent under Democratic leadership, and the citizens are crying because of it.

 

[RDKirk]

Scripture is prescriptive and proscriptive.

If Scripture says that government is a terror to the evildoer, and a government becomes a terror to those who do good, that government is committing sin, and is unjust.

Scripture is not telling us that whatever a government does is godly or moral, but rather is telling us what a government should be.

When the government fulfills it's role properly, the citizens flourish.

Out of the last 16 years, 12 were spent under Democratic leadership, and the citizens are crying because of it.

So, Romans 13 only applies when we feel like it? When Peter also exhorted Christians to honor the civil authorities, he said at the same time that they were ungodly and immoral. And Nero certainly wasn't godly and moral when Paul wrote to the Romans.