"We are pro-life and pro-family. We are firm supporters of religious liberties and economic opportunity for men and women to exercise their gifts and create value in the world. We believe in the authority of Scripture.... American evangelicals have always been a loose coalition of tribes. We have fought one another as often as we have fought together. We at Christianity Today believe we need to relearn the art of balancing two things: having a firm opinion and inviting free discussion. ... We are far more committed to the glory of God, the witness of the church, and the life of the world than we care about the fortunes of any party. Political parties come and go, but the witness of the church is the hope of the world, and the integrity of that witness is paramount... Galli’s editorial focused on the impeachment, but it was clear the issues are deeper and broader.... The problem is that we as evangelicals are also associated with President Trump’s rampant immorality, greed, and corruption; his divisiveness and race-baiting; his cruelty and hostility to immigrants and refugees; and more. In other words, the problem is the wholeheartedness of the embrace. It is one thing to praise his accomplishments; it is another to excuse and deny his obvious misuses of power.... We... believe the evangelical alliance with this presidency has done damage to our witness here and abroad. The cost has been too high. American evangelicalism is not a Republican PAC.... It is time for evangelicals to have a serious discussion about how our identity as Christians shapes our activity as citizens. We will invite authors who represent a variety of viewpoints in a thoughtful and charitable manner. We will publish those essays in mid-January...."
From
"The Flag in the Whirlwind: An Update from CT’s President/Why our editor in chief spoke out against Trump, and why the conversation must continue" (Christianity Today).
And that editor in chief, Mark Galli, says he's gotten a lot of support,
The Hill reports,
"A stereotypical response is ‘thank you, thank you, thank you’ with a string of a hundred exclamation points — ‘you’ve said what I’ve been thinking but haven’t been able to articulate, I’m not crazy,‘” Galli told MSNBC. “We have lost subscribers, but we’ve had 3 times as many people start to subscribe."
Posts
269 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 269 of 269Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
There have been 1000's of attacks on us by you and yours.
The phrase 'You and yours' used in this manner conventionally refers to myself and my family. If I understand you correctly you are claiming that I and/or my wife and children have been responsible for 1000's of attacks on some entity known as 'us'. Mine and my familiy's actions and our continued freedom seem to suggest a remarkable failure on the part of law enforcement.
This guy thinks we are responsible for the Nazi's in Charlottesville.
Can't figure out why we think he is involved in attacks on Trump supporters.
Anyone who supports the DNC and democrats supports violence on Trump supporters.
It is implicit in everything you say and do. I could pull up dozens of videos of democrat leaders inciting violence and thousands of comments on the NYT's comment board justifying the shooting of Scalise.
The truth is punching us in the face.
Fuck you. War.
ARM: "Who really are the trolls here? The nitwits proclaiming one idiotic conspiracy theory after another..."
LOLOLOL
Yes, Team Russia Collusion/Putin controls Trump/Hoax dossier/Carter Page is a russian spy/Brett Kavanaugh raped hundreds would like to take a moment to lecture others on conspiracies.
Discuss.
Achilles said...
Fuck you. War
More violent ideation. I am pretty sure that this is believed to be a bad thing on this blog.
I see this thread degenerated quickly.
anyway, I'm a CT reader. It generally is culturally conservative but has moved a bit left politically. My concern with the original Mark Galli editorial was the timing. I know Christians who support Trump and those who oppose him. so I have no problem with a Christian speaking out against Trump. But by timing the editorial to the impeachment (a political action) it tied the message less to Christian ethics and more to political sensibilities. Galli is retiring and I wonder if he felt free to post this on the way out.
This follow up piece (linked by the Professor) by CT was soft. What really surprised me was the CT Facebook post titled "In case you missed it" with a re-run of Galli's piece. Feels like a doubling down and an invitation for more disunity
I see this thread degenerated quickly.
The usual suspects.
“The problem is that we as evangelicals are also associated with President Trump’s rampant immorality, greed, and corruption; his divisiveness and race-baiting; his cruelty and hostility to immigrants and refugees; and more. In other words, the problem is the wholeheartedness of the embrace. It is one thing to praise his accomplishments; it is another to excuse and deny his obvious misuses of power....”
This nonsense is just a collection of left-wing talking points. Christianity Today was established in 1956. It’s editors did not see fit to condemn the criminal sources of Kennedy money, the notorious adultery of JFK while in office, LBJ’s multimillion dollar grifting and philandering, not to mention his racism and crassness, Bill Clinton’s infamous philandering and sexual misconduct and the Clinton’s graft accounting for a fortune of $100 million.
I don’t contend that Trump is a good Christian or any kind of Christian at all, but his behavior IN OFFICE has been far more beneficial to followers of Yahweh and Jesus Christ, indeed, more Christian, than any of the Democrats I have mentioned or who are vying to replace him.
It is absurd to contend that Christianity Today is a conservative Christian publication or has been in years. In denying Trump it is now aligned with godless Democrats who are responsible for 60 million abortions, sedition and perjury intended to overturn the 2016 election, atheistic socialism, pandering to Muslim extremism, promoting open borders, free health care for illegal immigrants, etc.
We can play at vilification too. And our assertions, unlike those of CT, are true.
CT is whispering accusations into the ears of Christians that Trump is a bad example and as such Trump can never qualify as a life long pride filled law keeping show off.
And they are right. Trump is a courageous warrior that fights for Christians when no one else has the guts to take on their crafty Enemy. As such he earns a loyalty back from Evangelicals that everyday pride filled law keeping show offs can never receive.
I wonder if CT knows that Christians don't take marching orders from magazines, televangelists or Bible scholars.
Traditional guy: monotheistic doesn't mean monolithic. Christians are a diverse bunch and many believe that Trump is the anti-Christ. Trump fights for a segment of the Christian right, not all Christians. You're only retort is the no true Scotsman trope.
churchianity's "Drudge Report"
mockturtle said...
I wonder if CT knows that Christians don't take marching orders from magazines, televangelists or Bible scholars.
Earnest Prole said...
The most amazing cultural change is that before Trump, Christian Evangelicals were the most likely group in America to say infidelity disqualified a President, and now they are the least likely.
They would seem to be taking their marching orders from someone. You rarely see such big coordinated swings in opinion on such fundamental issues as this for such large groups of people.
Mock turtle you really suffer from terminal naivete and or tunnel vision. Of course CT and other organizations know that Christians take their marching orders from televangelist magazines radio television politicians and any other flamboyant fork tongue devils.
How in hell do you think they make their billions? The spirit of Jimmy swaggart Reverend Ike the Crystal cathedral and Jim and Tammy Baker live on
ARM: "They would seem to be taking their marching orders from someone."
It's become quite obvious just what you and your lefty pals are really all about. It's natural that the intended targets of your policies would catch on as a group.
What you are angry about is that they have in fact caught on to your game and LLR-lefty Chuck's pals grift and won't put up with your lies any longer.
Christianity Today editor Mark Galli said Sunday that his call for evangelical Christians to support impeachment was “hyperbole,” and he admitted “the pro-life issue is just one of many” where President Donald Trump is in sync with evangelicals.
The usual suspects . . . plus a couple of new ones (or using new names).
Who really are the trolls here? The nitwits proclaiming one idiotic conspiracy theory after another or the helpful rational objective observers attempting to help them sort out fantasy from reality.
I see you agree with us. The nitwits went from Russia Hoax to Ukraine Hoax to arguing if witnesses they did not call should testify.
"How in hell do you think they make their billions? The spirit of Jimmy swaggart Reverend Ike the Crystal cathedral and Jim and Tammy Baker live on"
"billions".
Jimmy Swaggart has a net worth of 2 million.
Reverend Ike's net worth was 115 million when he died.
Jim Bakker - $650,000. That's thousand.
Robert Schuller - 125 million.
So, total, less than 250 million.
"Billions".
I've never watched a televangelist in my life. But those who do watch them need to test their messages against the Word of God. I'm sure many are fine but some, like Schuller, are frauds. Even so, giving money to them is not tantamount to following them like sheep. Whenever that is the case, it becomes a cult. Christ is the only head of the Church and His Word the only authority.
Howard wrote: “Trump fights for a segment of the Christian right, not all Christians.”
Trump supports freedom of religion for all Christians, opposes the killing of innocent unborn babies and the infanticide supported by House Democrats, opposes anti-Semitism and more. These are Christian values, not “Christian right” values.
Cafeteria Christians like the CT folk are leftist first, “christian” second. People who do not share their religious commitment to the leftist agenda rather than biblical Christianity are called Christian, not the “Christian right.”
Rudy does not appear to be fully in control of himself here. Seventy five is pretty old to be still trying to out hustle the press and prosecutors. Maybe it doesn't end badly, but I wouldn't place money on a positive outcome.
I'm no fan of televangelists.
But I fucking hate wilful deception dependent on popular innumeracy.
Howard and ARM both don't think there's any difference at all between millions and billions. I'm sure they think I'm just being picky and anal when I point out the irrelevant difference.
You left out Reverend Al Sharpton who owes us millions, and despite visiting the Obama White House more times than he visited the toilet, he was never asked for a payment.
And I think the correct phrase is "you and your ilk".
"many believe that Trump is the anti-Christ."
Many? Many!?!?
I know some Christians that are ardently anti-Trump but suggesting they think he is the "anti-Christ", now that's a stretch.
Maybe we make "hyperbole" the 8th deadly sin.
seems right out of isikoff, 'poor ignorant and easy to command' and Michael lynd's grand mal freak out over pat Robertson, around the same time, he was trumpeted in Molotov monthly, new York review of books,
‘Who really are the trolls here? The nitwits proclaiming one idiotic conspiracy theory after another or the helpful rational objective observers attempting to help them sort out fantasy from reality.’
Excellent question. One I’ve asked myself many times over. It appears the definition of troll here is one who has divergent opinion from the majority.
mockturtle said...
but some, like Schuller, are frauds.
Of the various preachers listed here (Swaggart, Ike, Bakker, Schuller) not sure why you singled out Schuller as a fraud. He had a good eye for architecture (described here). I agree with his statement, “There’s a place for monuments”. The money wasn't wasted so much as repurposed for the Catholics, who love monuments.
the greatest con man who ever lived. Drago's hero who has paid for a hundred abortions.
Well that's, like, just your opinion, man. You certainly have no proof, not that you ever have proof. The counterexample is that he could have stayed married to Ivana if he had gotten Marla to knock off Tiffany. So there's that.
Your mistake is to judge everyone else by yourself, which leads to judging that everyone else is a piece of shit, because you are a piece of shit.
It appears the definition of troll here is one who has divergent opinion from the majority.
Thank you for outing yourself, Inga. Merry Christmas.
Seventy five is pretty old to be still trying to out hustle the press and prosecutors. Maybe it doesn't end badly, but I wouldn't place money on a positive outcome.
So, Bernie and Biden are toast ? Good of you to admit it. Merry Christmas
He's lying.
That's a sin.
CT declared itself political.
Inga: "Excellent question."
LOL
Inga, at this very moment, remains a Russia Collusion believer, a hoax dossier believer, a Brett Kavanaugh is a gang rapist believer, a Carter Page is a russian spy believer, and about 10 other debunked conspiracy theories believer.
Its always hilarious when she and ARM and Howard and LLR-lefty Chuck lecture others on conspiracy beliefs.
Seems like only yesterday Inga was lecturing us about how only wild-eyed crazies could possibly believe Hillary and the DNC paid for the hoax dossier.
Good times, good times....
Inga said...
Excellent question. One I’ve asked myself many times over. It appears the definition of troll here is one who has divergent opinion from the majority.
No. You think that because you are stupid and evil.
You know that being a troll is about posting in bad faith.
You are constantly posting/parroting lies and you never admit you are wrong.
Just recently you have lied about:
Trump colluding with Russia during the election.
Trump being a Russian agent.
Kavanaugh being a rapist.
Trump being a rapist.
Nicolas Sandmann being a racist.
Trump "bribing" Ukraine.
Every instance your bullshit is debunked. But you keep posting garbage that is proven untrue and you are just generally a piece of crap.
Well, speaking as an atheistic libertarian (among other fine qualities--Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and Whatever Is Culturally Appropriate Kwanzaa, y'all) I find more to like about what has happened under Trump than to dislike.
Though I thought of myself as sophisticated to the point of cynical about our elites, and had the usual suspicions of Trump--hell, I was openly wondering to friends if a lot of government officials and military officers weren't studying up on refusing unlawful orders when Trump came in! --
Oh what a child I was. The whole apparatus (with some saving exceptions esp on the uniformed side) was already rotten with corrupt seditious careerists, cons, and grifters.
Narr
We pay billions to the Organs of State Security and they can't even properly frame a guy like Trump
“...you are just generally a piece of crap.”
Merry Christmas.
Achilles said...
Just recently you have lied about:
Kavanaugh being a rapist.
Trump being a rapist.
Bill Clinton has repeatedly been called a rapist on this site. Was this a lie?
All three men have been accused of rape. Trump has a somewhat longer list of accusers than the other two although Clinton's is also substantial.
None of the three have been criminally prosecuted for rape.
Inga: "Merry Christmas."
I wonder what Christmas will be like for the Sandmann family this year.
I wonder if Inga ever thought about that as she sought to destroy a teenage boy's reputation for life for political convenience.
Actually, no, I really don't wonder.
Quinn... Thanks for providing my point. 4 random and second tier out of hundreds of remuneration Christians adds up to a quarter billion. Your righteous indignation is noted as a cover for your weak math and population sampling skills.
You chose to make your hyperbolic point by picking four second tier examples?
That's... so normal.
Just riffing, Quinn. Sorry you can't keep up, nothing I can do about that. Your dense cake is already baked, blame your parents.
So go ahead, pick your 4 first tier billionaire televangelist examples, since they escaped you when you attributed billions to the small number of them that hold all of Christendom under their thrall.
Nichevo thinks himself the fictional hero Jack Aubrey and projects that on to his other fictional hero Donald Trump. Do you see yourself as the In-Shape or the bloated and drunk Russell Crowe?
What's the net worth of the Catholic Church?
ARM. “The money wasn't wasted so much as repurposed for the Catholics, who love monuments.”
Chartres?
Norte Dame?
Cathedral de Santiago?
LMAO. So when you said this:
"Mock turtle you really suffer from terminal naivete and or tunnel vision. Of course CT and other organizations know that Christians take their marching orders from televangelist magazines radio television politicians and any other flamboyant fork tongue devils."
...you were *naturally* talking about the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church.
That's much more probable than you spewing any random ridiculous bullshit you can to cover up for your earlier innumerate idiocy. Don't worry, this puts you firmly in the leftist camp around here. None of them can ever admit to being wrong regardless of evidence either. They'd rather make complete fools of themselves, and think that as long as they never admit they're wrong, everyone else must respect them as if it is in fact the case that they're never wrong. You fit right in.
Howard said...
What's the net worth of the Catholic Church?
A lot less than it used to be.
The Christian Left: Thou SHALT covet thy neighbor's goods!
Bill Clinton has repeatedly been called a rapist on this site. Was this a lie?
No it was true but due to his power as Governor, then president, he has never stood before a judge. At least Paula Jones got some justice but Anita Broderick has not.
Howard said...
Nichevo thinks himself the fictional hero Jack Aubrey
Listen to little Garbage Howie squeal! I owned him and didn't even know it. Well I don't want you, so take you back, please.
As for Aubrey-Maturin, bucko, would you be happier if I said Mutt and Jeff? I just couldn't remember who was the big one. My main point was that we were an odd couple and I was twice his size, no other implications meant for our various accomplishments, skill sets, love lives; though in fact Maturin was not a bad comparison for him, I won't claim Aubrey's virtues, or any virtues, though I'm better with animals.
Come to think of it, Mike did, in fact, introduce me to Patrick O'Brian, another of many deeds to thank and remember him for.
And after all that, Howard, you're still a two-legged blivet.
Sorry, Juanita,.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
Just recently you have lied about:
Kavanaugh being a rapist.
Trump being a rapist.
Bill Clinton has repeatedly been called a rapist on this site. Was this a lie?
All three men have been accused of rape. Trump has a somewhat longer list of accusers than the other two although Clinton's is also substantial.
None of the three have been criminally prosecuted for rape.
Perfect. Thank you for making my point.
Standard democrat mendacity. You are pretending that the accusations against Trump and Kavanaugh are the same as the accusations against Clinton.
Because you are a piece of shit.
Let us compare.
Trump supposed forced himself on a woman in first class. Witnesses, and common sense, make it clear this was a false accusation.
Trump also allegedly forced himself on a woman in a public changing room of an expensive, popular clothing store. She later said she kinda wanted it among other amusing and obviously crazy statements.
Kavanaugh was accused of raping a woman over 30 years ago in a house she can't remember the address of sometime over the period of 2 summers where at least 4 witnesses she has named contradicted her story.
Let us compare that to Juanita Brodderick:
"As Broaddrick—who was working on Clinton's campaign for Arkansas governor at the time—tells it, that day she had plans to meet with Clinton at his campaign headquarters until he suggested they meet up at a coffee shop in the lobby of a hotel where she was staying. When Clinton arrived at the hotel, she said, he called up to Broaddrick's room and said he was at the coffee shop, but that it was too crowded. He allegedly asked instead if they could have their meeting in Broaddrick's hotel room.
"I was nervous," Broaddrick wrote on Wednesday. "But he was the attorney general. I agreed and ordered coffee."
Things escalated quickly when Clinton arrived at her room, according to Broaddrick. She said he ushered her over to the window, asking her to join him in looking out at a nearby jailhouse he "wanted to restore when he became governor." Then, she alleged, the assault happened: "As he pointed to it, he put his arm around my shoulder and I backed away," Broaddrick wrote. "He then grabbed me and started kissing me. I was so startled and shocked. I told him, 'NO!!'
"When I realized he was not taking no for an answer I began to scream," Broaddrick continued in her Wednesday account. "That is when he began to bite my upper lip every time I screamed. Then he shoved me backwards onto the bed.
"After 40 years, I am still very emotional and tearing remembering what followed," she wrote. 'It was a forcible, brutal rape!""
Only a terrible person would think these accusations are on the same level.
I thought that might touch a nerve but I didn't expect all those secondaries.
ARM. “The money wasn't wasted so much as repurposed for the Catholics, who love monuments.”
Chartres?
Norte Dame?
Neither of these are properties of the Church. They are both owned by the French government.
What's the net worth of the Catholic Church?
For a world-wide billion-member Church, it is pretty far down the list of wealthy entities. It's incredibly cash poor. Meanwhile, nearly all of the properties it holds are being used for the benefit of others -- the sick, students, etc. The artistic works are more of a burden than a benefit inasmuch as they are held in trust for humanity and actually cost money to preserve.
The trolls and the troll feeders have taken over the thread.
It's the Ebenezer Scrooge thread.
Bah Humbug!
First of all, I am willing to believe that any or all of the three men are rapists, or are not rapists. I have no solid knowledge on which to judge the issue so I will withhold judgement until there is an actual criminal case, with depositions under oath and physical evidence where it exists.
I would note that Broaddrick, when testifying under oath, denied having been raped by Clinton, and the FBI found evidence for her allegations inconclusive.
Not sure on what basis you can be so absolutely certain of the guilt of one man and so equally certain of the innocence for the other two men. You literally know nothing genuinely unimpeachable for any of the cases.
The number of accusations would seem to be the best indicator of guilt in these cases. In the Weinstein and Cosby cases, although most of the stories told by the accusers were not entirely conclusive, the sheer abundance of these stories made it difficult to ignore them collectively. In this respect, Trump has more to answer for.
"The number of accusations would seem to be the best indicator of guilt in these cases."
/headdesk
Mark
You seem to have missed the point. Entirely.
the 'spiritual impeachment' didnt get much traction either--
"Literally laughed out loud when I read this".
https://twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1208903625050861571
At one evangelical church, congregants dismiss the Christianity Today editorial — if they’ve read it at all
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/22/one-evangelical-church-congregants-dismiss-christianity-today-editorial-if-theyve-read-it-all/
Not sure on what basis you can be so absolutely certain of the guilt of one man and so equally certain of the innocence for the other two men. You literally know nothing genuinely unimpeachable for any of the cases.
You ignore facts that are in front of your face. Nobody here but DNC trolls pays attention to you.
You seem to have missed the point. Entirely.
Actually, I didn't think that there was a point. And any "point" that there was was entirely nonsensical.
It's important for the record, however. A lot of anti-Catholic bigots like to claim that the Church is some greedy wealthy entity. So they have claimed ever since the time of the Roman emperors, like when the Deacon Lawrence brought before the authorities the treasures of the Church.
Howard said...
I thought that might touch a nerve but I didn't expect all those secondaries.
Believe me, nothing you say matters. But fin de año is a good time to remember old friends.
Among the virtues of the culture I was brought in up in that you want to kill was not fighting people too much older than you, so go on and run your whore mouth.
I would note that Broaddrick, when testifying under oath, denied having been raped by Clinton,
I believe it's probably wrong to treat an error as a lie, and I'm not positive of my own facts without checking, but I believe you're wrong on this. IIRC, Juanita Broaddrick denied the incident occurred until she was placed under oath, at which time she preferred honesty to perjury. Meanwhile, she has multiple independent corroborative testimonies.
That said, lies are what I expect of you, and when you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras.
and the FBI found evidence for her allegations inconclusive.
Well then that settles it, eh?
A complete interview with Juanita Broderrick for the piece of shit above lying about her.
Compare her story to any of the women ARM says accused Trump of rape.
Here are 12 stories of women who accused Clinton of rape all with witnesses and reports to authorities.
Notice how ARM never actually posts any of the women or stories of his HUGE NUMBER of accusations about Trump. He just asserts there are a lot of them.
There is no comparison. Bill Clinton has a clear pattern of rapist activity.
With Trump there are a bunch of lying leftist gold diggers with gofundmes and stories that are so obviously false ARM will never mention them for obvious reasons. Just like Christine Blasey Ford who is an obvious liar.
Because he is a piece of shit just like every other leftist out there who supported Clinton.
Nichevo said...
I believe it's probably wrong to treat an error as a lie, and I'm not positive of my own facts without checking, but I believe you're wrong on this.
This is the kind of intellectual laziness that is killing this blog. How many click would it take to confirm that your slander was wrong? Too lazy to have any credibility. Compounding your laziness the link I listed above contains the information.
chilles said...
Notice how ARM never actually posts any of the women or stories of his HUGE NUMBER of accusations about Trump. He just asserts there are a lot of them.
I provided a link to pages of them. You are too stupid to even notice.
Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was similar to Broderrick's. What is your criteria to believe one and not the other? They both have some credibility and for both there are some questions.
Astounding to see the very first comment from early yesterday pushing the Soros BS.
The troll farm marches on?
Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was similar to Broderrick's. What is your criteria to believe one and not the other? They both have some credibility and for both there are some questions.
Pure bullshit.
There is absolutely nothing credible about Ford.
You are so ridiculous.
Christine Blasey Ford's testimony was similar to Broderrick's. What is your criteria to believe one and not the other? They both have some credibility and for both there are some questions.
We know exactly when and where the attack on Broderick took place. Blasey Ford didn't even know what year.
You surely can do better than this.
Post a Comment