T
Theo520
Guest
Hardly 8910
Or maybe the pastors who wrote in complaining about the CT editorial - maybe they were the bullies.The editorial by CT was actually a good example of bullying
You’ve just confirmed you haven’t actually read the lettersOr maybe the pastors who wrote in complaining about the CT editorial - maybe they were the bullies.
I’ve justified it earlier. You are free not to agree, but I’m not wasting my time repeating myself for you.What’s to know? You characterize the CT editorial as bullying with absolutely no justification, so I don’t need any justification for characterizing the letters objecting to the editorial as bullying. Since no justification is required, there is no reason to read them.
I guess that just not a difference I grasp. Yes, I try to be moral both politically and privatelyIt’s a lot easier to be righteous politically, than it is to be right.
In my case I prioritize policies that I believe a candidate will promote over their character.There is no real bullying and I understand that Evangelicals are solidly pro Trump. I am just surprised, vonsidering his life, no one questions his moral fitness.
Then you’ve excluded 98% of all politicians. From the local to the national level, we have serious moral issues within leadership. Unfortunately, this is nothing new.considering his life, no one questions his moral fitness.
Possibly you could point out some of those because most folks really don’t follow all the regulations.What we don’t see, and what is not reported, is the deregulation assault on regulation designed to protect our land and resources.
Even when the person denies he needs to be forgiven anything?Evangelicals of a conservative type (there are liberal ones too) are pretty big into forgiveness and conversion, and don’t question its genuineness too much.