So what’s your take on the furor over the editorial in “Christianity Today”?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
60 Answers
I suppose that the editor had to address the issue in his article to his readership sometime, and now is a good idea just before Christmas for them to think on further.
Link per favore or Wat’chu talkin’ ‘bout Willis?
Republicans have been shedding their values to defend 45. Is this the breaking point? I doubt it, but if not here, where?
Just more twitter fodder.
It’s commendable the reasoning and sound rationale on the editorial. But rabid trump loving hypocritical evangelicals are legion hence this editor’s act is heroic.
Could it be a return to rationalization? Have they ever been rational?
So let me get this right. As long as he was delivering judges that hate the abortions and the gays his moral failings could be glossed over. But there is a good chance he won’t be re-elected so lets wash our hands of him so in a year you can go, “We have been against him for a long time, our morality is intact.”
Fucking cowards. Wear your stink.
How many women / girls do you think he / his Daddy paid to have abortions since he was 13?
The Trump Evangelicals like Graham’s son, Franklin, have called the magazine out as betraying Billy Graham and Christ, and for being leftist Christians who are Christian in name only.
In other words, it hasn’t shifted the opinions of more than a half dozen people.
I only know that when the cry goes up from the right about leftist elitists labeling conservatives dummies, one need only point to the significant crowd among those whining who claim that Stinky exemplifies the teachings of Christ, or worse yet justifies ignoring such teachings for “the good of the party”. It’s enough to make me wish there were indeed truth to their beliefs that they might one day be compelled to explain the contradiction to the purported be all and end all of their divine existence.
They will lose about 80% of their subscribers. The editor will be fired, but the damage is done.
None of you give a flip about this magazine or its editor anyhow, so that’s a victory for all of us. I just feel bad for the staff who will probably be let go.
That is a feeble answer regarding the validity of the article.. Tell us honestly doggie, how would YOU defend the turd in the face of Christ?
And you are oh so wrong doggie! That editorial is the beacon to the rest of us that there are still principled men and women of courage buried in the evangelical movement. That editorial has earned those responsible the sort of acclaim worthy of our greatest heros, and you can bet your ass that is EXACTLY how they will be, remembered!
Amen. I believed in truth and justice at one time. Trump blew that shit out of the water.
The editorial has not harmed Trump, but it has greatly harmed the magazine.
The overwhelming majority (over 80%) of evangelicals stand with Trump. It is hard to say how many other mainline protestants do, because it seldom if ever comes up in church. I suspect a lot of the anti-Israel churches, which are very liberal, are anti-Trump as well.
It is unlikely there will be many who are active in religion will be swayed, considering the antireligious position the democrats have taken.
Those evangelicals who believe an endorsement of Trump and his behavior the embodiment of Christian ideals are beyond misguided. They are delusional and dangerously so.
@Yellowdog :: I’m just wondering what you think “harming the magazine” looks like. How is the magazine harmed by posting the editorial? I’m going to assume you mean profits.. And if you think a Evangelical Magazine is only in it for the profits… Jesus is awkwardly rolling in circles on the cross.
I think that CT made a couple mistakes with it’s editorial. It tried speaking for all Christians, which is wrong. It stepped into a political arena when it is supposed to be a religious content magazine. Yes, @Tropical_Willie CT was founded by Billy Graham. Yet his son, Franklin Graham has come out against CT’s editorial. He likes Trump and feels he is doing a good job especially for evangelicals. I think the only good thing about the editorial is that it brought CT into the mainstream dialogue, though not in the way they wanted. But maybe even bad press can be good press, eh?
@johnpowell your last answer has some odd contradictions in it. Yes, the editorial will cost the magazine subscribers which could put it out of business. So that is a concern to the magazine. You make the statement that @Yellowdog thinks the Evangelical magazine is only in it for the profits. This is a strawman fallacy. The Evangelical magazine might be in it to boost Christianity, a topic I will address in a moment, but it also has to worry about profits. And at no time did @Yellowdog or anyone else say they were only in the business for the profits. That is your claim that you attribute to someone else so you can try ridiculing them. As for CT being in this business for some reason other than profits, such as pushing Christianity, you might be right. Except many Evangelical leaders have already condemned CT for their approach and their movement from Christianity to politics. So the current editorial staff (and ownership) might be using the magazine as a platform to push a liberal agenda, but is clearly not pushing a Christian agenda…not as most Christians see it.
The editorial is a THUNDERBOLT. It brings into the public forum the absolute Achilles heel confronting Trump and all who follow him——ethical suitability. As you well understand wulfie, there is no hiding that one, and it is the one topic you will ALWAYS ignore, deflect from , change the subject, duck and dodge. That editorial is the penultimate indictment of the hypocrisy required of Trump worship, and it will be featured prominently in the history books of this era. You can expect quotes from this missive in the upcoming campaign, because just as I’ve claimed, the bottom line is that Trump is an unmitigated affront to decency.
@stanleybmanly yes, it’s a THUNDERBOLT. A liberal news outlet creates a biased view point. Wow. Yeah, you got me there. As for ethical suitability, let’s expand the view to encompass all the front runners. We have Bernie whose wife needs to be investigated and who, on a Senator’s salary manages to afford 3 luxury homes. We have Warren who lied about her ethnicity to get advantages along her life and who, on a Senator’s and a Professor’s salary (not at the same time) managed to become a multi-millionaire. We have Biden who admitted to using federal funds geared towards security as a bargaining chip to influence a Ukrainian investigation. Isn’t that exactly what you fools on the left claim Trump did to get impeached? Huh. Yeah….ethics…they’re a bitch, aren’t they? Oh wait! Now you will try to ignore, deflect from, change the subject on and duck/dodge these issues. Go ahead…prove me wrong.
Do you pretend for even an instant that the total flaws of the entire batch add up to a single day Of Trump bloopers, gaffes or scandals? It’s an argument too shallow to merit discussion. NO ONE can approach the turd on matters of moral impropriety—NOBODY!
Yelling only makes you look desperate, sir.
Perhaps, but more contemptible than desperation is flagrant dishonesty— and any pretense that some other candidate approaches Stinky’s low water character mark is willfully dishonest.
By the way, you didn’t let me down. Your answer checked a few of the boxes. Ignore….CHECK! Deflect….CHECK! Duck/Dodge…CHECK! You are nothing if not predictable.
@johnpowell In response to your asking what I meant by the editorial not harming Trump but will harm the magazine, the magazine will probably go out of business or lose enough subscribers that many of its staff, who do not likely hold the position of that editor, will lose their jobs.
Tasteless ads and sophomoric editorials where a writer declares their own self righteousness and condemns another do not bide well with their audience. Lets hope some board of directors will fire the editor. but the damage has already been done. They will not likely get their lost subscribers back.
Not many magazines or newspapers or other print media can survive as it is.
This really isn’t your dogfight, though. The people who are pleased by the editorial are not evangelicals or religious and certainly don’t have a moral cause, nor are they the audience of this magazine.
Just WHO is the audience then? And pleased isn’t the term that applies here. The word you’re looking for is vindicated. And you hypocrites howl about betrayal at the simple suggestion that you can’t climb into bed with the devil and call yourself a CHRISTIAN!
@stanleybmanly as I said…a liberal publication puts out a biased view point. What a shocker! That almost always happens!
“Overall, we rate Christianity Today Right-Center Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that slightly favor the Right. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.” – -mediabiasfactcheck.com/
Not a liberal media outlet @seawulf575, but you like to make-up things to support your views. Or “copy and paste” from skinhead media.outlets.
Of course a publication called “Christianity Today” is going to be biased. Further, if it’s _evangelical, it’s going to lean toward your views and opinions, @seawulf575.
A magazine called, “Satanic Time” also be biased.
@seawulf575 Are you living on the moon? Where did you get the idea that a magazine titled Christianity Today might be a liberal publication?
I think that’s what the Muslims wanted to kill Rushdie over.
What did the Muslims want to kill Rushdie over?
The Book, The Satanic Verses, is actually a comedy where Satan and Mohammad negotiate what to put in the Koran
What did the Muslims want to kill Rushdie over @Yellowdog?
Why don’t you read about it?
In 1988 / 89, liberals were still for free speech and resisted Islamic oppression
Sigh. We do you the courtesy of posting sources and links all the time @Yellowdog. Do you not know how to do it?
“On February 14, 1989 Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for British writer Salman Rushdie to be killed for writing “The Satanic Verses”, which the cleric said insulted Islam.
In a fatwa, or religious decree, Khomeini urged “Muslims of the world rapidly to execute the author and the publishers of the book” so that “no one will any longer dare to offend the sacred values of Islam.”
So Ayatolla Khomeini calld for Rushdie to be killed for writing “The Satanic Verses.” Geez. Talk about suppression of free speech. But that’s them. Not us. They don’t have a constitution to protect them, so kill away.
@Dutchess_III Rushdie was a British Indian citizen and claimed to be an Atheist. So what you are saying is that since he wasn’t a US citizen it’s okay for Muslims to kill him? Seems awfully isolationist.
Evangelicals are nasty, opportunistic, hypocritical Satan embracing voters. All except for this editor. LOL!!!
I thought liberals didn’t like grandstanding judgmental pontiffs who claim to speak for Gaud, and tell everyone how Gaud will judge them for their political differences.
You and the wulf aren’t fooling anyone. YOU know the editors are right in declaring the turd for EXACTLY what it is. And the hypocrisy in the howls of outrage only mark those pretending otherwise for what they are. When you 2 continue to insist that the emperor is fully clothed, you only eliminate any chance of being taken seriously on anything else.
Orange man REALLY corrosive to YOUR credibility.
Turns out Christinaity Today saw a spike in subscriptions following the editorial, gaining three new for everyone they lost.
Didn’t the editor get forced to resign?
@Dutchess_III No, that was an editor at the Christian Post who publicly announced his resignation, claiming that a Pro-Trump editorial condemning Christianity Today would place the evangelical publication “on Team Trump.”
@zenvelo In order for that to be true, Christianity Today would have to have 3,600,000 (Three million, six hundred thousand) new subscribers.
I think not.
@Yellowdog Do your math again !!
They only have 130,000 subscribers.
Therefore if the lost 10,000 old subscribers thee gained 30,000. Get back on your med’s..
They lost 80,000 subscribers on the first day.
@Yellowdog Give us the source (you make up stuff along the way) !!!!!
Source that substantiates @Tropical_Willie‘s statement of the magazine getting 3 times the subscribers. @Yellowdog can you show us your source because I looked and couldn’t find one to substantiate your statement. But if you do find one, I’m willing to read it.
And @Yellowdog don’t quote Trump or Breitbart New Network !
The acquisition or loss of subscribers is secondary to the crack in the false front that you can be an ethical individual and stand in support of the turd.
Answer this question 
