Christianity Today Editor Says His Call For Impeachment Was ‘Hyperbole’

So what he really means is when the heat came he instantly melted. Scumbags true colors on display for all. He outraged us (right) with his orig article. Now he outrages the left.

 

Don’t put it in print if you are not ready to defend it.

Peace to you

 

How is Galli wrong?
The President has done many things that all Christians will applaud and should applaud. Yet, he continually mistreats people whom he sees as enemies first and fellow citizens second. He takes to Twitter with comments that have no Christ-like message in them. He refuses to turn the other cheek. He shows little resemblance to Jesus message in the Sermon on the Mount. His claim to be a Christian is not reinforced by his words or actions in regard to humanity.

Do I respect him because God has placed him in authority? Yes. Absolutely. Do I cringe when he comments on Twitter and in campaign stops? Yes. I do not see the virtuous person that God requires of His children. To that end I pray for President Trump. We all struggle with sin. When sin is pointed out, we can repent or we can seek revenge. Of the two responses, which one do we see in President Trump?
How I wish it were the first response.

 

Hyperbole? What a weasel. He tosses a live "grenade" into the room and when questioned about the damage, claims it was just a joke to scare people.

 

this guy again. He sure doesn't sound like his far-left rant has trip[led subscribers at all. He is just trying to close the God gap, and someone at that same paper endorsed Hillary Clinton last time. I think the outfit is on the right of the social issues, to the left on everything else, and everything else is more important than the social issues. That's the opinion of the Religious Left, and that's their opinion. He says:

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president

like Hillary would have done so much better? Then he says:


Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

lol. as if Hillary had anything but a "bent and broken character" and she loved that great evil Mark CAN tolerate. Oh, well, he's entitled to his opinion, even if it's sanctimonious and self-righteous beyond belief. But I'll always value Rev. Graham's more.

 

He is not claiming that it's "just a joke". In this interview, he states unambiguously that Trump is fundamentally unfit for the office.
He is restating his thesis, not walking it back. This is patent with even a cursory reading!

 

This is a strawman argument.
Straw man - Wikipedia

 

Mark had the straw man - :trump is unfit for office, he needs to be removed, can't keep supporting him because of his actions because .. . . ORANGE MAN BAD!!! He didn't say he wanted Pence in, did he? Anything but.

This is nothing new. CT has been howling about Trump's immorality since day one. I think Mark here realized they weren't about to remove Trump and this was a Hail Mary. Orange man bad.

 

Did CT advocate Clinton's removal back in 1998 over his known immorality? Or was not even hyperbole a factor back then?

It all sounds to me like the true evangelical backlash is beginning to hit CT in the pocketbook, with loss of advertising revenue and subscription cancellations starting to occur. (I would cancel, but I stopped reading CT years ago over its questionable progressive social and political policies).

 

He claims to have no animus against Christians who disagree with him, but doesn't mind trash-talking their work ethic and educational level. He claims he is not speaking politically, but that is all he is doing in the guise of Christian morality, which he is trouncing in the process. He also says he wants every type of morality to succeed and claims Trump is in the way of that.

I suspect he may not have meant to state it so clearly, but he most definitely made the LGBTQ+ agenda the deciding factor in his diatribe against the president, stating that he himself and CT actively promote the LGBTQ+ agenda and think Trump's presidency is a deterrent to its advancement.

"We want the United States, everybody—left, right, black, white, of a variety of sexualities—we want them to prosper. And I'm saying that, given the moral character, the public moral character of our president, that's not going to happen. It's likely to degenerate radically over the next__ and it has already degenerated. And it's time for us to put a stake in the ground and say, 'No more.'" [4:29]

 

Morally unfit according to what?

 

According to LGBTQ+ standards. Trump is standing in the way of their immoral agenda. See post #11.

 

I started reading this mag many years ago on the advice of a friend, but relegated it to file 13 for the same reasons after digesting several issues.

 

in the passage of time abortion has turned to infanticide supported by many on the left but blocked by Trump/Pence

Infanticide Makes a Comeback | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.