Why do Some Christians support Trump?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Fuck if I know anymore. It’s both ridiculous and sad.

[Manokan Republic]

I literally have already explained this, the point of these countries was it was too difficult to track the potential migrants. It's not to block all Asylum seekers, or a bulk of them, it's to block criminals. They happened to be largely Muslim-majority countries, but not all of them. Oh no? You have to assume that it's due to prejudice against muslims, which you can't prove and are just assuming, vs. the fact they are actually violent places. They happen to be the same 7 countries that Obama chose to put restrictions on, too. I guess Obama Chose these 7 countries and hates muslims too? The only difference is the level of which Trump went to, but it's not that these countries are muslim, but places where it's hard to vet refugees coming in. It *happens to be* the middle east has a lot of violence and wars going on right now with a break down of governments in several places, and so it happens to be most of the country on travel watch-dog lists are there. This isn't a slight against muslims, just right now the muslim-world, or the middle east, has a lot of violence. If this was a different time period, maybe it would be the other way around, but right now, the middle east is in a bad situation. The list of countries are chosen from those provided by political advisors, apparently the same advisors to Obama. It's the dangers reflected by these countries, not that they are muslim-majority countries.

So now you're suggesting the reason the ban happened is because the infrastructure in the countries listed couldn't provide an accurate assessment of who was arriving?

So here are primary refugees populations:



Are you suggesting that the nations which he didn't ban which represent enough administrative competency that they could provide enough info on their refugees compared to the nations Trump banned?

I'm sorry, that is bullshit.

Ethiopia. Dr Congo. Ivory Coast. South Sudan. Are not some bastions of administrative competence and certainly do not have a higher standard of checks on these groups.

So I'll ask again, why these nations? Why these asyslum seekers?

Additionally, I've already shown it did ban them in bulk, as the number of refugees went down from 1800 a week to 2. That's not stopping criminals that's stopping everyone.

Again, you are just dodging the point and trying to strawman me, I've explained this multiple times. These are places where WE could not vet the incoming waves of refugees. Crime rates went up in country's that did accept them without proper vetting, so it is a fact this would happen and did.

A country's government being intact does make it far easier for us to vet them; it's not about their own government being able to vet them, but us. North korea for example is also a banned country on the list, for this same reason. The fact it was predominately muslim countries is irrelevant, is my point, that's incidental to the fact they were the most concerning places. If they were predominately Christian nations, it wouldn't really matter either. Again, you can assume whatever intentions you want, but the facts are what it actually did, what it's stated objective was, and what the basis for the policy was. These are the same 7 countries, chosen by Obama for immigration restrictions. You can disagree with the level of harshness by Trump, but that's another issue entirely. Although there are exceptions for those with considerable hardships, and the strictness has decreased with some countries over time. The idea was to be extremely restrictive for a time period, then slowly reduce them as time went on, presuming we got a better handle on things. We also got refugees from these countries, however coming through other countries.

[Lower Nubia]

So now you're suggesting the reason the ban happened is because the infrastructure in the countries listed couldn't provide an accurate assessment of who was arriving?

So here are primary refugees populations:



Are you suggesting that the nations which he didn't ban which represent enough administrative competency that they could provide enough info on their refugees compared to the nations Trump banned?

I'm sorry, that is bullshit.

Ethiopia. Dr Congo. Ivory Coast. South Sudan. Are not some bastions of administrative competence and certainly do not have a higher standard of checks on these groups.

So I'll ask again, why these nations? Why these asyslum seekers?

Additionally, I've already shown it did ban them in bulk, as the number of refugees went down from 1800 a week to 2. That's not stopping criminals that's stopping everyone.

Again, you are just dodging the point and trying to strawman me, I've explained this multiple times. These are places where WE could not vet the incoming waves of refugees. Crime rates went up in country's that did accept them without proper vetting, so it is a fact this would happen and did.

A country's government being intact does make it far easier for us to vet them; it's not about their own government being able to vet them, but us. North korea for example is also a banned country on the list, for this same reason. The fact it was predominately muslim countries is irrelevant, is my point, that's incidental to the fact they were the most concerning places. If they were predominately Christian nations, it wouldn't really matter either. Again, you can assume whatever intentions you want, but the facts are what it actually did, what it's stated objective was, and what the basis for the policy was. These are the same 7 countries, chosen by Obama for immigration restrictions. You can disagree with the level of harshness by Trump, but that's another issue entirely. Although there are exceptions for those with considerable hardships, and the strictness has decreased with some countries over time. The idea was to be extremely restrictive for a time period, then slowly reduce them as time went on, presuming we got a better handle on things. We also got refugees from these countries, however coming through other countries.

I haven't straw manned you, nor dodged your points I have led you to the conclusions your own points have revealed. I'm asking why we could not vet these countries but not equivalent others, the only difference between the two categories is that one presented Muslim asylum seekers, the others (who presented their own asylum seekers and therefore belong in your increased violence category, did not. North Korea and Venezuela are easy political targets seeing as a) North Korea is still at war with the US and her allies, and b) Venezuela has a socialist and government the US sees as illegitimate.

[Merrill]

For the past few elections I’ve seen it as a choice between two evils, and that Donald Trump is the lesser.

Here’s what I think is positive for him. The order of the list means nothing.
1. He been great for the black community and the poor.
2. He’s good for the economy and not entirely responsible for how the Corona Virus impacted us.
3. He promotes religious freedom.
4. He’s not going to defund or dismantle the police.
5. He protects the 2nd Amendment.
6. He’s against erasing history.
7. I’m glad he increased the Child Care fund in 2018 to help low income family’s.
8. He increased funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities by 13% setting the Highest record. Providing more than 500,000,000$ in loans.
9. He’s not for the idea of taking away the electoral college.
10. He’s pro voter ID, meaning he supports the idea of people being required to show photo identification in order to vote.
11.Hes against the Green New Deal.
12. Anti Obamacare.
13. He’s physically and mentally capable of performing as President.
14. He’s Pro Life.


Negative and Anti Christian things.

1. I don’t see the point in the Wall. I don’t think Heavenly Father supports that, Heavenly Father wants us to be good Samaritans and help those in need. As far as I’m concerned this is his policy to ALL of his children regardless of what country they come from. So there needs to be immigration reform. If something is anti nuclear Family then it’s against God. Compassion is needed. However at the same time I do not support foolishness such as allowing anyone into the country, we need to come up with more effective ways of vetting out criminals and terrorists while at the same time not separating families.

2. As a person he is imperfect, as am I. So while God does not Condone adultery and all Sin he at the same time commands us to refrain from unrighteousness judgement. Jesus Christ said “He that is without sin among you, Let him first cast a stone at her”. How can I judge others when I walk so imperfectly? “Ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”. So I pay more attention to how he runs the country rather than how he carries him self in his personal life.

3. I like Joe Biden’s voice more. But that’s not going to impact my voting.


4. Should have put more effort in fighting Corona. But also a lot of people use the fear of it to control people and further there agenda.



Lastly these lists do NOT contain everything so yeah.

Also if you argue with hatred, pride or contention or hypocrisy then you’ve lost favor with God. That’s happened to me and this applies to everyone. I could argue against abortion or using curse words or anything and yet if I start to be contentions or hateful then Im not really on His side anymore. Additionally I could always pretend to be nice and fake love, and others may very well believe it. But God is omnipotent and know my heart so I’d still be wrong. So as you carry on today in your lives please remember to treat each other courteously and be loving in practice. And forgive people who aren’t doing so.

To be a Good Samaritan is to help someone personally. This is not done by inviting the world’s poor to come to the US illegally and then force your neighbors to pay to support them.

[Ricksolot]

For the past few elections I’ve seen it as a choice between two evils, and that Donald Trump is the lesser.

Here’s what I think is positive for him. The order of the list means nothing.
1. He been great for the black community and the poor.
2. He’s good for the economy and not entirely responsible for how the Corona Virus impacted us.
3. He promotes religious freedom.
4. He’s not going to defund or dismantle the police.
5. He protects the 2nd Amendment.
6. He’s against erasing history.
7. I’m glad he increased the Child Care fund in 2018 to help low income family’s.
8. He increased funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities by 13% setting the Highest record. Providing more than 500,000,000$ in loans.
9. He’s not for the idea of taking away the electoral college.
10. He’s pro voter ID, meaning he supports the idea of people being required to show photo identification in order to vote.
11.Hes against the Green New Deal.
12. Anti Obamacare.
13. He’s physically and mentally capable of performing as President.
14. He’s Pro Life.


Negative and Anti Christian things.

1. I don’t see the point in the Wall. I don’t think Heavenly Father supports that, Heavenly Father wants us to be good Samaritans and help those in need. As far as I’m concerned this is his policy to ALL of his children regardless of what country they come from. So there needs to be immigration reform. If something is anti nuclear Family then it’s against God. Compassion is needed. However at the same time I do not support foolishness such as allowing anyone into the country, we need to come up with more effective ways of vetting out criminals and terrorists while at the same time not separating families.

2. As a person he is imperfect, as am I. So while God does not Condone adultery and all Sin he at the same time commands us to refrain from unrighteousness judgement. Jesus Christ said “He that is without sin among you, Let him first cast a stone at her”. How can I judge others when I walk so imperfectly? “Ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”. So I pay more attention to how he runs the country rather than how he carries him self in his personal life.

3. I like Joe Biden’s voice more. But that’s not going to impact my voting.


4. Should have put more effort in fighting Corona. But also a lot of people use the fear of it to control people and further there agenda.



Lastly these lists do NOT contain everything so yeah.

Also if you argue with hatred, pride or contention or hypocrisy then you’ve lost favor with God. That’s happened to me and this applies to everyone. I could argue against abortion or using curse words or anything and yet if I start to be contentions or hateful then Im not really on His side anymore. Additionally I could always pretend to be nice and fake love, and others may very well believe it. But God is omnipotent and know my heart so I’d still be wrong. So as you carry on today in your lives please remember to treat each other courteously and be loving in practice. And forgive people who aren’t doing so.

To be a Good Samaritan is to help someone personally. This is not done by inviting the world’s poor to come to the US illegally and then force your neighbors to pay to support them.

I agree that it’s a personal thing, and I never said anything about inviting anyone. And I’m strongly against unlawful entry. As we are to obey the law of the land, unless it conflicts with Heavenly Fathers law directly. Like if praying became illegal we would still pray. Thankfully I live in the United States. However I also think that immigration can be made easier for families while at the same time safe for us.

Here’s my stance on how helping others is a personal thing and why it’s not the government’s responsibility.

Ex:Loving my wife is a good thing – but it’s a role only I can fill. You can desire for her to BE loved by me, but it’s not your role to love her FOR me. You can even encourage me to love her, or disciple me to be a better husband, but you can’t fulfill the role that I should be filling. The same goes for government regarding health care (among other things). The government is to protect our borders and keep us safe from foreign threats as well as protect us from domestic violence, execute justice, and encourage righteous behavior (Romans 13:4; I Peter 2:13-14; Preamble to the Constitution). That’s their role. They can encourage churches, individuals, and companies to care for the needy, but they are not tasked with the responsibility to care for those in need, because when they do, they can’t help but intrude upon the lives of their citizens. Conversely, the Church (as an institution) shouldn’t be involved with enforcing the law or protecting the borders. The Family, the Church, and the Government are all institutions which have their respective responsibilities, and they should be doing the best job possible filling those responsibilities.

[The Sovereign Realist State]

1. He called it a hoax and mocked Biden for wearing a mask.
2. Over 220,000 American lives lost.
3. That doesn't help if no one else does.
4. That lockdown didn't work. Americans could come in from China still, people from China could come in if they had layovers in another country... It was the least secure lockdown and it was too late. Yes. It was racist.
5. Over 220,000 American lives lost. That number can double just this year. How is that not deadly?
6. But if no one else does, it's useless. You think I want to see even one more person die? I do not. But the president can prevent it and I can't. His refusal to do so is murder to me.

1. He called what a hoax?...

He was giving daily press conferences with medical experts so no idea what kind of leftist propaganda you're referring to.

2. Sure, viruses kill. The cold also kills a lot ... what should he have done differently exactly?

Far more negligent was Pennsylvania and NY forcefully mixing elderly people with the virus carriers, don't you think?

3. Well, it already does little to help. The virus kept spreading in all the countries tat adopted masks..

4. Lockdown was imposed in 2020 after virus was active since 2019. But we did not know so... Thanks China.

I am very confused: so you were in favour of preventing americans in China from returning to the US? Because the DNC sure as hell wasn't

Oh it was racist?! so we should not have had a lockdown at all?!!..............

Sorry I can't quite keep up with you

5. because that number speaks of deaths WITH covid, not of COVID. We have to wait until mortality rates come out to compare them with previous years but it is not a calamity.

[Punished UMN]

1. He called it a hoax and mocked Biden for wearing a mask.
2. Over 220,000 American lives lost.
3. That doesn't help if no one else does.
4. That lockdown didn't work. Americans could come in from China still, people from China could come in if they had layovers in another country... It was the least secure lockdown and it was too late. Yes. It was racist.
5. Over 220,000 American lives lost. That number can double just this year. How is that not deadly?
6. But if no one else does, it's useless. You think I want to see even one more person die? I do not. But the president can prevent it and I can't. His refusal to do so is murder to me.

1. He called what a hoax?...

He was giving daily press conferences with medical experts so no idea what kind of leftist propaganda you're referring to.

2. Sure, viruses kill. The cold also kills a lot ... what should he have done differently exactly?

Far more negligent was Pennsylvania and NY forcefully mixing elderly people with the virus carriers, don't you think?

3. Well, it already does little to help. The virus kept spreading in all the countries tat adopted masks..

4. Lockdown was imposed in 2020 after virus was active since 2019. But we did not know so... Thanks China.

I am very confused: so you were in favour of preventing americans in China from returning to the US? Because the DNC sure as hell wasn't

Oh it was racist?! so we should not have had a lockdown at all?!!..............

Sorry I can't quite keep up with you

5. because that number speaks of deaths WITH covid, not of COVID. We have to wait until mortality rates come out to compare them with previous years but it is not a calamity.

2) No, actually, it doesn't. There is no contagious disease which kills in excess of 100,000. let alone 200,000, in the United States.
4) Blaming China for not disclosing info they had for five days for the US and other Western countries not acting for two months is just plain shifting blame.
5) The mortality rates are already out and show 200+K excess deaths compared to last year.

[Odreria]

I think you greatly misunderstand the nature of Christianity.

The comment was made in jest, hence the link to the satirical website Babylon Bee.

Ah yes, I thought you were trying to make some kind of weirdo attack on the church. Who knows, maybe I'll read nation names next time

[Narland]

Ok, since the election is now a week away, I have a burning question for Pro Trump Christians: Why do you support him? What is Christian about him? I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just that this dilemma has frustrated me for four years, and I need some answers. I would like to hear why Pro Trump Christians support him / believe he is a man of God

I supported Trump for the 2016 election from the start. For over 50 years of my lifetime, the Establishment GOP (Grand Old Party) --at least since their betrayal of Goldwater -- have preemptively caved on nearly every major point in the conservation of Classical Liberal republican principles. I have watched the Establishment Elite of DC and their Beltway Cronies in both parties incrementally destroy:
1. the productivity of the American worker,
2. inhibit and destroy family run farms, ranches, lumber mills, mines, and light industry in rural America;
3. over-regulate (and strangulate) the self-employed entrepreneur out of competition to not just foreign markets but within our own neighborhood.

I am re-voting for Trump because as Christians we are to work with our hands, mind, and heart finding a product or service to offer for a reasonable price to the best of our ability in the pursuit of happiness professionally, independently and reliably as entrepreneurs, contractors, or employees if at all possible to support ourselves, our families and the less fortunate in our communities. Trump is not a threat to this. Those that hold to forcing Christians to be silent in the public fora, forbidding the practice of our faith in public (especially in providing charity (welfare in marx-speak) to the indigent and unfortunate), forcing us to do the unconscionable, and shutting our face about the hope that lies with in them, are.

I am re-voting for trump because I have read Trump's political books (and policy statements). They are for the most part consistent and persistent. I have followed him when he helped finance Ross Perot's Reform Party (and when he was still a media darling of the left). Trump helped make policy decisions for its platform. Trump is a strong economy, small but efficient government safety-net Independent. This is better than being a big government pay to play despot (which Christians are to resist). If you look at the pre-Buchanan planks of the Reform party Trump still holds to them save one. Between the 1990s and the 2010s Trump became pro-life. Not being pro-life was the major point of contention that kept me from becoming Reform Party back in the early 90s. While I disagree with Trump's Democratic Party leaning positions of expanding Medicaid, strengthening medicare, and reinsuring Social Security, I do agree that eliminating the part of Obamacare that requires Citizen's to purchase medical insurance from a private party as though that is somehow the same as medical care from a physician itself to be patently fraudulent. Americans were given the metaphorical equivalent of unaffordable poo-on-a-stick and told that it was magical disease repellent. Now that Trump wants to take those things back in exchange for real medical care in free and open markets (no plan necessary comrade), some people are crying to not have their unaffordable magical disease repellent poo-sticks taken away.

I am re-voting for Trump because I do not believe the hype, the lies, and the malicious crap said about him by those whom he is a threat to. Think about it, after holding a White House luncheon, he couldn't eat a second scoop of ice cream without a horde of narcissists screaming like a bunch of middle school mean girls against the cute but approachable new girl in school. If he is a tyrant for eating an extra scoop of ice cream what the heck are the rest of us to them? The lies continue to be as vapid and as outrageous as any demagoguery from a corrupt third world despotism. As Christian we are fully aware of the hate and vitriol against us. In the US it is tolerable, but for most our history, and in many countries, proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord means loosing one's livelihood, freedom, and life.

I am re-voting for Trump because he was and is anti-Globalist, anti-NAFTA, anti-Crony Capitalist, and is for free and open markets in a free and open society of free and independent People (which Evangelical Christianity supports). Being for free and open markets means he is also anti-Fabian Socialist (imposing socialism through the transformation of public institutions (by any name except Socialism) including creating a "rational administrative state" of bureaucracies to subvert people's rights and freedoms by shackling them with the chains Socialist servitude. The government is to serve the people, not vice versa. When he says he will bring back jobs, he can because he has the know-how and the done-so to do so. I did not support his 2000 Presidential run in the Primary the Reform party. It was hostile to the pro-life position. Iirc I supported either Browne or Phillips for President.

I am re-voting for Trump because truth, justice, and liberty are not just slogans for the comic books, they are general principles that when put in a Classical Liberal Republican framework bring about the most productive, prosperous and free civilization in the history of the world. This is not hyperbole, this is what has happened. In 200 years we went from a +60 hour work week for everyone except the 0.00001 percent in their castles and most in most of the world slavery was an ubiquitous +6000 year institution to a 40 hour work week where most people have electricity, hot and cold running water, indoor bathrooms, a cell phone, even our poor are fat, and slavery is universally condemned as a criminal activity engaged by the most heinous of persons. This is something not even the richest oligarchs or mightiest of monarchs had a mere 200 years ago -- even they were destitute by contemporary standards. Trump believes in these principles -- limited government protecting the right to life, liberty, and property by means of truth, justice and peace through republican limited government, equal justice under the law, and self-determination of each and every individual to be free from fraud, and coercion. These are by by nature Christian principles in accord with Evangelical orthopraxy.

I am re-voting for Trump because he stands against those who try to relegate the American people to the serfdom of an unconstitutional administrative State amenable to Globalists and hostile to the exercising of our rights, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as individuals, families, and communities that have our own self-determination. In 2015, the RNC had the audacity to present 17 antidisestablishmentarians --yes it i is a word and an apt one at that -- (continuing everything that is wrong with DC (politics as usual for the last 50 years). And then there was Trump, the iconoclast disestablishmentarian with the experience not as a elitist politician whom the RNC and their cronies embrace), but as an entrepreneur, businessman, entertainer, producer, contractor et. al., with the moxie of a crass longshoreman, the business acumen of a independent entrepreneur who is neither beholden to the Beltway Cronies nor the Globalist Elites. Trump is someone who played by the rules of their own rigged system to keep themselves in power, and the common person codependent upon their power, and won "bigly" without them. It was rather obvious to those whom the ruling class of DC despise that Trump had a fighting chance to tear through them like a hot knife through butter, and possibly win against the queen of crony of politics herself, Hillary Clinton -- which he did.

The question is more discerning if we ask what about Trump that is a hindrance to the Church (and Christianity)? The Church (I am speaking from an American non-denominational (and multi-denominational) Evangelical perspective) has three functions -- it is to worship God by preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and discipling/disciplining its members (congregants) in order to raise up Christians to follow the imperatives of Christ, be light and salt to the world, love God, love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves and by treating them in the same manner in which we want to be treated. We are to work hard, play hard, die hard, keep our noses, clean and keep it out of other people's business and expect others to do the same. Trump is amenable to that. I want everyone to live free from fraud and coercion of government despotism, criminal acts at large, and to set liars, cheats, thieves, and haters straight. This is what I want for myself, and I gladly help others in this endeavor. I see nothing about Trump in that he wants to specifically hinder the commission of the Church in general.

Another helpful question is, what about Trump is a hindrance to Christianity? Can you name me a few things? I can say for certain that there are plenty of Democrats and Never-Trumper GOP that would be very happy if Christian were to stop being so worshipful to God and start worshiping them, their vain imaginations, and their apparatus of state -- which of course Christian cannot do. The state is a poor replacement for God. The state has two functions (a primary and an ancillary) -- to be a terror to evil-doers by prosecuting criminals, and praising those who do well; thus allowing Christians to be left alone in peace to lawfully conduct their lives by Scripture according to the dictates of their own conscience with all their (and everyone else's) God given rights, privileges and immunities intact. The petty despots of this world (many who make their money from Beltway statecraft) cannot abide by letting anyone live their lives apart from them, their machinations, nor their grand plans of a big intrusive state that micromanages our lives into an Orwellian/Wellsian/Huxleyan stupor. And then they have the hubris to expect our gratitude for the abuse. Besides that, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

God uses flawed men. Except for Christ, flawed people are the only type of human that is out there. Christians do not need an unrealistic Chaplain America with a vibranium Bible to vote for. What is needed is someone to fight the Swamp creatures that seek to prosper from the deterioration and destruction of this Country. A deeply flawed braggadocios scrapper from Queens with vim and vinegar that is otherwise a straight a shooter as much as the Establishment rigged system will allow shall suffice.

[Glen Ellyn]

Ok, so a lot has happened since I last checked the conversation, and never have I made a thread with so many replies, so thank you. At first it seemed that we all agreed Pro Trump Christians are missing something pretty obvious: Trump is Pro Life, but that is the only Christian thing about him. However since then, some Pro Trump Christians have responded by saying that nobody is perfect, as long as he is repentant, he is a good man. The problem is, Trump is not repentant. He has said that he “doesn’t do many bad things” and he doesn’t understand “why I need forgiveness, why do I need to repent” (put in his own words). It says in the Bible that if we say we don’t need God “we make him out to be a liar, and thus he has no place in our hearts.” Trump is sinful and unrepentant, he is not a Christian. Still it was intriguing to see your input, even if it doesn’t make sense.

[Geneviev]

Ok, so a lot has happened since I last checked the conversation, and never have I made a thread with so many replies, so thank you. At first it seemed that we all agreed Pro Trump Christians are missing something pretty obvious: Trump is Pro Life, but that is the only Christian thing about him. However since then, some Pro Trump Christians have responded by saying that nobody is perfect, as long as he is repentant, he is a good man. The problem is, Trump is not repentant. He has said that he “doesn’t do many bad things” and he doesn’t understand “why I need forgiveness, why do I need to repent” (put in his own words). It says in the Bible that if we say we don’t need God “we make him out to be a liar, and thus he has no place in our hearts.” Trump is sinful and unrepentant, he is not a Christian. Still it was intriguing to see your input, even if it doesn’t make sense.

He's not pro-life.

[Ricksolot]

I know repentance is vital, I’m in need of it always. I actually just read about what your talking about coincidentally and it is very sad to see. He is indeed wrong and I hope he learns before it’s to late because it’s always terribly sad when it grows to late for a child of God, Heavenly Father is so deeply saddened when is children die in sin and he loves Donald Trump so much, just as he does all his children. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I cannot judge him personally for his sins, I condemn the sin but not the man. Only God has the authority to Judge and final judgements have not been made yet.
As a person he is imperfect, as am I. So while God does not Condone adultery and all Sin he at the same time commands us to refrain from unrighteousness judgement. Jesus Christ said “He that is without sin among you, Let him first cast a stone at her”. How can I judge others when I walk so imperfectly? “Ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”. So I pay more attention to how he runs the country rather than how he carries him self in his personal life. I never stated he was a a good moral example and unless he does choose to change i won’t do so. However his decisions as the President of the United States of America have aligned with some of my values and beliefs. From what I can tell his Presidential decisions will hopefully continue to do so. If Biden becomes president then I can only hope he does the same, regardless I would treat him with the same respect and love I show Trump. If you want to know more then contact me personally. Otherwise look at my past posts on this thread. Also I hope you receive more strength to overcome the obstacles and challenges you may be facing in life, and I hope you find and receive more blessings in your life that will help you to grow in gratitude and faith. So that you may remember to not give into the temptation to be contentious. I hope your goals are righteous and that you do not seek to “contend with one another”.

[Czechostan]

I would say the major reason is that people simply put their politics before their religion. Most people choose their preferred candidate, then backpedal and tell you why that candidate adheres to their religious values the most.

[Deacarsia]

Some (indeed, most) Christians in the United States support President Trump, because his policies and governance correspond more closely to the beliefs of Christianity than other candidates.

Despite his own personal faults and questionable history, he and his movement stand on the side of traditional Christian values, the free societal expression of Christianity, and the preservation of Christian civilization.

I say all of this as a Christian and a supporter of President Trump myself. My traditional Catholic faith is an enormous influence on my life and thinking, and, as in all thing, it helps to determine which candidates I support in all political contests.

[Deacarsia]

Why is it that some people, usually non-Christians, automatically (and quite arrogantly) assume that they have an absolutely perfect understanding and knowledge of Christian teaching and how it should guide Christians in their participation in politics?

Why do these same people assume that Christians who disagree with their often uninformed understanding of Christianity must be disingenuous in their faith?

Christians generally have a better understanding of Christian teaching than non-Christians, and very often their political choices do in fact reflect their religious values and morality.

Indeed, it almost always is the small minority of self-proclaimed “Christians” who actually do agree with the politics of these same non-Christians who are well outside the mainstream of Christian thought and allow their politics to determine their religious thinking, rather than those who are criticized.

Most Christians in the United States support President Trump, precisely because he governs in accordance with their religious values and not the very different values of the non-Christians who criticize them for that same support.

[Albrenia]

Why is it that some people, usually non-Christians, automatically assume that they have an absolutely perfect understanding and knowledge of Christian teaching and how it should guide Christians in their participation in politics?

Why do these same people assume that Christians who disagree with their often uninformed understanding of Christianity must be disingenuous in their faith?

Christians generally have a better understanding of Christian teaching than non-Christians, and very often their political choices do in fact reflect their religious values and morality.

Indeed, it almost always is the small minority of self-proclaimed “Christians” who actually do agree with the politics of these same non-Christians who are well outside the mainstream of Christian thought and allow their politics to determine their religious thinking, rather than those who are criticized.

Most Christians in the United States support President Trump, precisely because he governs in accordance with their religious values and not the different values of the non-Christians who criticize them for that support.

So basically that's a yes to the whole 'hypocrisy' explanation, then? As in you're willing to support a corrupt, narcissistic and unrepentant sinner as long as he passes laws which you favour morally?

I can't knock it as an effective tactic I guess, although it seems a little light on integrity.

[Deacarsia]

Why is it that some people, usually non-Christians, automatically assume that they have an absolutely perfect understanding and knowledge of Christian teaching and how it should guide Christians in their participation in politics?

Why do these same people assume that Christians who disagree with their often uninformed understanding of Christianity must be disingenuous in their faith?

Christians generally have a better understanding of Christian teaching than non-Christians, and very often their political choices do in fact reflect their religious values and morality.

Indeed, it almost always is the small minority of self-proclaimed “Christians” who actually do agree with the politics of these same non-Christians who are well outside the mainstream of Christian thought and allow their politics to determine their religious thinking, rather than those who are criticized.

Most Christians in the United States support President Trump, precisely because he governs in accordance with their religious values and not the different values of the non-Christians who criticize them for that support.

So basically that's a yes to the whole 'hypocrisy' explanation, then? As in you're willing to support a corrupt, narcissistic and unrepentant sinner as long as he passes laws which you favour morally?

I can't knock it as an effective tactic I guess, although it seems a little light on integrity.

Actually, your answer is more of a confirmation of everthing upon which I just elaborated. I am willing to support a man with a morally questionable past but who supports traditional Christian values and the preservation of what remains of Christendom over an overtly anti-Christian and proudly sinful heretic who support their outright destruction.

Again, as I predicted and described, you attack my character with an obviously poor and limited understanding of how Christianity actually works and what it teaches.

Any person who honestly read and understood what I had written would understand the point I was making about the ridiculousness of allowing non-Christians to dictate Christian doctrine based on their flawed and uninformed understanding of Christianity, of which you then immediately provided quite an excellent example.

Whether this so-called “tactic” works or not is irrelevant to the fact that it operates in accordance with Christian teaching and moral reasoning in the context a fallen world. Quite the contrary to this being light on integrity, it is your ignorant and conceited response that demonstrates the very arrogance I was describing.

[Albrenia]

So basically that's a yes to the whole 'hypocrisy' explanation, then? As in you're willing to support a corrupt, narcissistic and unrepentant sinner as long as he passes laws which you favour morally?

I can't knock it as an effective tactic I guess, although it seems a little light on integrity.

Actually, your answer is more of a confirmation of everthing upon which I just elaborated. I am willing to support a man with a morally questionable past but who supports traditional Christian values and the preservation of what remains of Christendom over an overtly anti-Christian and proudly sinful heretic who support their outright destruction.

Again, as I predicted and described, you attack my character with an obviously poor and limited understanding of how Christianity actually works and what it teaches.

Any person who honestly read and understood what I had written would understand the point I was making about the ridiculousness of allowing non-Christians to dictate Christian doctrine based on their flawed and uninformed understanding of Christianity, of which you then immediately provided quite an excellent example.

Whether this so-called “tactic” works or not is irrelevant to the fact that it operates in accordance with Christian teaching and moral reasoning in the context a fallen world. Quite the contrary to this being light on integrity, it is your ignorant and conceited response that demonstrates the very arrogance I was describing.

Cool. It's not just his past which is morally repugnant though, just so you know. The present apathy towards hundreds of thousands of innocent lives is pretty bad too.

Also, Biden's not a heretic. He's Catholic. He also has nothing to do with destroying Christianity, that's just inane hysteria. Proudly sinful applies to both candidates, but yeah, that's not wrong about Biden either since he's not rabidly anti-rights on abortion.

[Joohan]

I acknowledge that Trump isn't a perfect vessel, and yeah a lot of his personal life seems unsavory to me - but his policies as a leader are very appealing to me. He's by no means a warmonger, something which has been a refreshing change from the last two presidents; he's increased federal spending towards supporting special needs education and combating the opioid crisis; I appreciate there being a president who actually wants to enforce our immigration laws; i've mixed feelings on his expansion of fracking across the United States, i'm personally for nuclear energy myself, but if we are going to get our oil from somewhere I would prefer it be here as opposed to Russia or Saudi Arabia.

He's done some stuff that I don't like, don't get me wrong, but he represents the better of two options. Looking at it from a Christian perspective, the DNC is practically anathema to Christianity on most social subjects: abortion, sexuality, secularism, chumming it up with consumerism and the worst of corporate America - and recently, i'd put war mongering up there too. There are some things I like about the DNC, like their environmentalism, and occasionally they've got the right idea about economics ( like a minimum wage to match inflation ) but they have so much baggage.

I wanted a Teddy Roosevelt, but all I got is a Trump, so i'll make do.

[Necroghastia]

So basically that's a yes to the whole 'hypocrisy' explanation, then? As in you're willing to support a corrupt, narcissistic and unrepentant sinner as long as he passes laws which you favour morally?

I can't knock it as an effective tactic I guess, although it seems a little light on integrity.

Actually, your answer is more of a confirmation of everthing upon which I just elaborated. I am willing to support a man with a morally questionable past but who supports traditional Christian values and the preservation of what remains of Christendom over an overtly anti-Christian and proudly sinful heretic who support their outright destruction.

...Are you seriously saying Trump supports traditional Christian values? How? Moreover, are you saying Biden is "an overtly anti-Christian and proudly sinful heretic who support [Christians'] outright destruction?" How in the fuck?

[Albrenia]

I acknowledge that Trump isn't a perfect vessel, and yeah a lot of his personal life seems unsavory to me - but his policies as a leader are very appealing to me. He's by no means a warmonger, something which has been a refreshing change from the last two presidents; he's increased federal spending towards supporting special needs education and combating the opioid crisis; I appreciate there being a president who actually wants to enforce our immigration laws; i've mixed feelings on his expansion of fracking across the United States, i'm personally for nuclear energy myself, but if we are going to get our oil from somewhere I would prefer it be here as opposed to Russia or Saudi Arabia.

He's done some stuff that I don't like, don't get me wrong, but he represents the better of two options. Looking at it from a Christian perspective, the DNC is practically anathema to Christianity on most social subjects: abortion, sexuality, secularism, chumming it up with consumerism and the worst of corporate America - and recently, i'd put war mongering up there too. There are some things I like about the DNC, like their environmentalism, and occasionally they've got the right idea about economics ( like a minimum wage to match inflation ) but they have so much baggage.

I wanted a Teddy Roosevelt, but all I got is a Trump, so i'll make do.

This makes a lot more sense to me, to be honest. The whole 'lesser of two evils' thing makes a lot more sense to me than him being some champion of Christendom.

I'll even go as far as to say I agree that the lack of warmongering is indeed a positive. He's far from perfect on that record what with the massive number of bombs dropped on his watch, but at least he hasn't started any new stupid wars.

[Deacarsia]

Actually, your answer is more of a confirmation of everthing upon which I just elaborated. I am willing to support a man with a morally questionable past but who supports traditional Christian values and the preservation of what remains of Christendom over an overtly anti-Christian and proudly sinful heretic who support their outright destruction.

Again, as I predicted and described, you attack my character with an obviously poor and limited understanding of how Christianity actually works and what it teaches.

Any person who honestly read and understood what I had written would understand the point I was making about the ridiculousness of allowing non-Christians to dictate Christian doctrine based on their flawed and uninformed understanding of Christianity, of which you then immediately provided quite an excellent example.

Whether this so-called “tactic” works or not is irrelevant to the fact that it operates in accordance with Christian teaching and moral reasoning in the context a fallen world. Quite the contrary to this being light on integrity, it is your ignorant and conceited response that demonstrates the very arrogance I was describing.

Cool. It's not just his past which is morally repugnant though, just so you know. The present apathy towards hundreds of thousands of innocent lives is pretty bad too.

Also, Biden's not a heretic. He's Catholic. He also has nothing to do with destroying Christianity, that's just inane hysteria. Proudly sinful applies to both candidates, but yeah, that's not wrong about Biden either since he's not rabidly anti-rights on abortion.

I find little in President Trump’s present public behavior to be morally repugnant, and I see none of this alleged “apathy” for “thousands of innocent lives,” which of course is code for supporting policies that you do not like.

What is inexcusable and morally repugnant, however, is the support of Joe Biden and others for the murder of millions of unborn children over almost five decades, the wasting of American lives in needless foreign wars, and the active ongoing war against Christian doctrine and practice. All of these, by the way, are not personal sinfulness of which President Trump has been guilty, but the active promotion of sin and lawlessness in society at large through the use and abuse of public office, or the destruction of Christianity as you called it.

Furthermore, Joe Biden most certainly is a public, formal, and notorious heretic. As you noted, he is “not rabidly anti-rights on abortion,” or in other words he does not steadfastly oppose the murder of unborn children (indeed, he fully supports it). This is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, and in and of itself constitutes heresy, not to mention countless other public positions he has taken.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325:

A heretic is one who, after having been baptized, and still claiming to be a Christian, denies or doubts pertinaciously a truth that must be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith.

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra №6, January 6, 1873:

It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error.

[Kowani]

I acknowledge that Trump isn't a perfect vessel, and yeah a lot of his personal life seems unsavory to me - but his policies as a leader are very appealing to me. He's by no means a warmonger, something which has been a refreshing change from the last two presidents;

This was a lie, by the way.

he's increased federal spending towards supporting special needs education

He cut $20 million in spending for blind and deaf students, cutting funding for the Special Olympics.

and combating the opioid crisis;

This was actually good.

appreciate there being a president who actually wants to enforce our immigration laws;

That’d be why he keeps getting his immigration policies smacked down in court, right?

i've mixed feelings on his expansion of fracking across the United States, i'm personally for nuclear energy myself, but if we are going to get our oil from somewhere I would prefer it be here as opposed to Russia or Saudi Arabia.

Ignore the fact that both Russia and Saudi Arabia are the 4th and 3rd largest oil import sources to the US.

He's done some stuff that I don't like, don't get me wrong, but he represents the better of two options. Looking at it from a Christian perspective, the DNC is practically anathema to Christianity on most social subjects: abortion, sexuality, secularism,

We’re never gonna agree here, so I’ll ignore this.

chumming it up with consumerism and the worst of corporate America

That’d be why corporate PAC’s have given more to the Reps for the last 5 elections, right?

and recently, i'd put war mongering up there too.

Well, we already debunked this.

[Odreria]

i've mixed feelings on his expansion of fracking across the United States, i'm personally for nuclear energy myself, but if we are going to get our oil from somewhere I would prefer it be here as opposed to Russia or Saudi Arabia.

Ignore the fact that both Russia and Saudi Arabia are the 4th and 3rd largest oil import sources to the US.

Yeah, that's why increased domestic energy production is good.

I agree with you about him being a warmonger. What his administration has done in Yemen is not indicative of a man of peace.

[Necroghastia]

Cool. It's not just his past which is morally repugnant though, just so you know. The present apathy towards hundreds of thousands of innocent lives is pretty bad too.

Also, Biden's not a heretic. He's Catholic. He also has nothing to do with destroying Christianity, that's just inane hysteria. Proudly sinful applies to both candidates, but yeah, that's not wrong about Biden either since he's not rabidly anti-rights on abortion.

I find little in President Trump’s present public behavior to be morally repugnant, and I see none of this alleged “apathy” for “thousands of innocent lives,” which of course is code for supporting policies that you do not like.

You find no apathy in his (lack of) response to the pandemic? You find nothing morally repugnant in him mocking the disabled? You find it to be perfectly Christian that he has taken on as VP a man who wishes genocide?You have no qualms with his repeated lying on pretty much anything and everything?

As for your Biden criticisms, most of it boils down to one of these.