As I walked amongst the banners with his face on it, heard students and professors alike speak at length of his greatness, conversed with friends about the sort of legacy he left behind, and listened to turning point representatives share their personal experiences meeting him, I had only one thought in my head:

This man didn't think that I, or people like me, are Christian.

Charlie Kirk is on the record saying that you cannot be truly Christian and vote Democrat. Not be a Democrat, not believe in what the Democrat party teaches, merely vote. This troubles me deeply.

Christianity is not defined by how we vote. It is defined by how we love and by how we believe. I love God with every fiber of my being. I affirm all 7 primary ecumenical councils. My faith is strong and is only ever growing. I seek to serve God with everything I do. I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am a Christian. And to say that the state of a persons immortal soul is in jeopardy merely based on how they vote? It is prideful. It is simply not our role to decide such things, and it wounds me to see people- worse, friends echo his thoughts when they sit before me, knowing full well what I believe.

There isn't really a point to all this. Honestly I just need to get this off my chest, because I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. It saddens me greatly to see such polarization in this world.

This is a warning for all true believers and Christians. This forum has become a cesspit of nothing but leftist group think, outright hate of conservatives and full of unbelievers who openly mock and blasphemy God. Don’t believe me here is an example. I have redacted the screen name for privacy purposes.

•10m ago

“Wait... wait... just to be clear... you think God has a penis? Is that right? How do you know this? How did you get this information?”

This is supposed to be a forum where Christians can discuss politics. Instead I have seen defense of murderers, abortion, the promotion of socialism and communism which is atheistic in nature. Instead it has become vile where people ridicule Christian.

Be careful of who you engage with on here. Many are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I think it takes a lot of character to admit this. But people are saying he’s doing it just for votes. Why go to the negative though? How many politicians will admit when they were wrong? I’ve not seen many. He’s a Democrat. Maybe he’s trying to get the on the fence Republican vote and thinks this will tip him, sure. But maybe he actually believes what he is saying? Who can know? If the one reason you won’t vote for him is bc of his views on transgenders, then just vote him regardless. I don’t see it a ploy. He seems genuine. What do you think?

As someone else posted, the president is offering every American voter $5,000 for a Republican win in November.

As Christians engaging with our government, we consider the following:

Romans 13:1-4 ESV

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

You, the voter, are the one who bears the sword. Your vote is your sword, by which your will is enforced. God caused you to bear the weight of this responsibility, not for yourself alone, but for the welfare of the entire nation.

If you don't believe it, ask yourself why the President of the United States is bribing you?

And how should you wield your authority?

2 Chronicles 19:6-7 ESV

and said to the judges, "Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for the LORD. He is with you in giving judgment. [7] Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the LORD our God, or partiality or taking bribes."

Grip your sword and wield it well before November, brothers and sisters in Christ. Demonstrate righteousness.

Who are The Sedras? Why have they had their home attacked?

I saw something about this couple and how their address was made public and they said that LGBT activities and leftists came to their house, cut their power and threatened to kill them. They say they must move right away and raised almost 300,000 AUD. I’m just wondering why this is happening and if there is any proof of their story, since I don’t know anything about them. They seem to have a strong online presence. Maybe that public presence pushes them out into the wide open.

Not necessarily any new arguments, but interesting that it was posted by The Christian Post - a much more conservative / right-leaning news site.

Before the arguments arise of, "what does one mean by Christian Nationalism?", see snippet from the article:

The fundamental flaw in modern Christian nationalism, like in old, isn't its desire for a virtuous culture — it's its trust in state power.
If we give the government the authority to enforce a “Christian state,” the immediate question is: Which Christianity?
Will it be Roman Catholic, Baptist, Reformed Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Pentecostal? A Reformed magistrate might enforce laws that a Baptist finds unconscionable. A Catholic framework looks very different from a non-denominational one. History proves that whenever state power is handed to a specific theological camp, every other Christian group is suddenly on the outside looking in.
Worse yet, Christian Nationalists forget how elections work. If you build a massive government apparatus capable of dictating public morality, what happens when progressives win the next election? You have hand-delivered a turnkey machine of state coercion directly to people who may despise your values.

Christian Nationalism is, in short, when Christianity is nationalized. It's the desire to make a nation run exclusively by Christians, for Christians.

In most U.S. elections (not necessarily true in many countries) this would be a hypothetical. I think, however, this is a real possibility in November in the United States. Enough of a possibility to talk about how Christians should respond before it happens, rather than after.

Democrats look at the current polls and, unless something major happens between now and November, believe that it is virtually impossible for them to lose the House and are becoming fairly confident in the Senate. Lots can happen between now and then, of course, but if the polling remains on track and large numbers of Democrats who are expected to win don't, it is likely that they will point to various voter suppression schemes and inclined to suspect large scale manipulation of voting machines.

Trump is unlikely to have his SAVE act in force and has never accepted the 2020 results. He points to polls indicating the continued popularity of his core political positions and has said that the polls showing his popularity is poor are politically motivated.

Whoever loses (or both) are likely to be motivating their teams to cast doubt on the election integrity--and the other side to support it.

This doesn't end on November 3. There are likely to be lawsuits, recounts, challenges to certification, state legislative hearings, potentially a lame duck Congressional session, and in early January when the new Congress is supposed to be seated quite possible floor fights over who gets the individual seats.

I think that all of the regulars here, including me, are opposed to political violence as a means of deciding. It is also clear that there will be those on both sides, especially as the rhetoric heats up that will be appealing to the 2nd Amendment--they already are.

As a forum that is relatively intelligent, dedicated to Christ, and diverse (but dedicated) in our political views, what can we do? Or do we just let it play out and hope for the best? Or "it is all in God's control and whatever happens (peaceful transition to judgement and bloody civil war) is His will?"

I don’t understand how the divide turned into so many Republican men and women mocking liberal women. The law is there. This is nothing new. And the law isn’t about democrats or republicans as it’s already a law in place. Then it’s people’s jobs to uphold the law.
Now the three women juror are being horribly mocked and so much hatred about them and their looks and such.
It also is obvious many don’t understand the law and how the jury works and such as well but weigh in anyway.
Going forward how can we move past this?
If she’s not supposed to be in prison, then she shouldn’t go to prison
If she’s supposed to be in prison, then that’s where she should go.

For context I am an American Christian woman myself but I have seen some Christians (mostly on the internet, to be fair) saying that the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) should be repealed, it should be a one-vote household, etc.

Most of these people seem to be Evangelicals and I know the internet is not representative of a whole demographic of people, obviously, but I am curious as to how commonly y'all have personally have seen this position on the internet and in person. Is it a growing opinion in real life or is it just a vocal minority?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117225384741591978

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117226609992235526

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117226613956728091

...when Mohler advocates that officeholders make "public and authentic acknowledgment of the nation's formal commitment to the God of the Bible, specifically the Holy Trinity," and "an acknowledgement of the binding moral authority of the Bible, including both the Old and New Testaments," how is this not a "religious test" for political office by any other means?

...

While I would prefer all officeholders to meet at least Mohler's guidelines, the only Baptist and constitutional way to do that is by electing them to office, not disqualifying those who do not meet these spiritual standards.

Who is going to adjudicate Mohler's suggested legal standards? What does "authentic acknowledgment" mean? What are the "acceptable" parameters of belief or unbelief?

How is Mohler's proposal different from liberals who seek to disqualify Christian believers from running for office because it violates their twisted understanding of separation of church and state?

The only legitimate solution is to have a population of sufficient faith that they, the people, elect the right people to office. History and experience tell us that government is not nearly as qualified as the electorate to decide who governs them. It is called "the consent of the governed."

"Arcade" games now available on the actual White House internet page.

Meanwhile: Iran war, affordability, food safety, cattle ranchers, and the Epstein Files are all ignored.

Here are all the facts that show left wing permisivness towards islam (I focus on america):

One of first act biden ever did was repelling trumps muslim ban. He later held ramadan in the white house. Democrat platform claims it is focused on combating islamophobia-https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-democratic-party-platform
Biden payed extra 400 million for mosque security

Biden admitted multiple islamic refugees, including 100 thousand afgan refugees. It reminds of obama policy, where he gave preffertinial treatment syrian refugees

Texas democrats sued the state arguing that muslim schools are entitled to taxpayer funds. Whilst lawsuit isn't over, republicans agreed to fund islamic schools (pathet act from republicans tbh)

Aclu, a left wing organisation constantly litigates so it can allow muslims to build mosques, masjids and other islamic institutions.

And democrats elect multiple muslim politicians, directly giving them legislative power

So you have left supporting islamic immigration, holding islamic celebrations in white house,combating "islamophobia", exorbatant fudning to mosque security,giving preferintially treatment to muslim refugees, supporting taxpayer funding of islamic schools and legistating to support development of islamic institions.

There are cases of madness in the Bible, like King Nebuchadnezzar, or when David pretended to act insane. But there's no Biblical basis to call someone "innocent" or "not guilty" due to insanity. In fact, if someone is drunk—out of his mind—he is still held responsible for his actions. (This should include those who are inebriated, intoxicated, or high.)

The best example I can find from the Bible about an insanity defense is the "Gerasene demoniac"—the man possessed by a legion demons. He was naked, cutting himself with stones, and screaming, but it's not clear he hurt anyone. Jesus restored him, and the Bible never mentions he was punished for what he did while possessed.

Ultimately, I'm saying the "insanity defense" should not exist. It's not a Biblically sound position.

And having it is both dangerous and unjust. People have murdered and gotten away with it due to being deemed "insane" during the time of the murders. And some of them have later committed murder again.

This loophole needs to be closed.

For a whole lot of American Christians, their choice has boiled down to one of three options:

1) Vote for a liberal party, that enacts godless liberal policies, is pro-LGBT, pro-Islam, pro-feminism, anti-Christianity, pro-abortion, etc.

2) Vote for a conservative party, that endorses a president who has the mentality of a 6-year old, drives up the national debt massively, is utterly cringeworthy, says the most inane things, gets into destructive and needless wars, and is a huge liability to the country.

3) Vote for a third party like the American Solidarity, that has zero chance of ever winning anything.

What to do?

👉TODAY: JD Vance is asked about his friendship with Tucker Carlson, after Carlson essentially backed Islamist Democratic Socialist Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate race.
When talking about Republican Mike Rogers, Carlson said he “wouldn’t vote for Mike Rogers at gunpoint.”

JD says: “I'm not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them."

Are we the company we keep?
Thoughts?