Pete Buttigieg Twists Christianity: ‘Salvation’ Depends on Being ‘Useful.’

[Andylusion]

Right, and I agree with that. It says you committed adultery. Yes. You did. But does that mean that you must divorce again, which is another sin? Does sinning twice, somehow cancel each other out?

And what if the other person has already remarried? Then what?

The Bible even says, that because of sexual sin, each person should have their own husband and wife.

But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
1 Cor 7:2
​

Telling someone to stay single because of a divorce years ago, means that now they would be tempted into immorality. And we've seen this by the way, even in the church. Where a pastor says he'll just stay single, and then years later you find he's screwing someone from the church. Why? Because he tried to stay single, and was tempted into immorality.

So I am not of the opinion, that if you sin, and you end up marrying some girl who was divorced, that this means you are now required to sin yet again, by divorcing again. That just makes no sense to me.

Now ideally you should not marry a woman who divorced her husband without cause. I agree with that. On that point, your post is accurate and true.

But I do not believe in the catch 22 version of Christian, where you are damned to hell if you don't, and damned to hell if you do.

Doesn't mean you can go marry women who divorced without cause. But it also doesn't mean that those who have committed sin, are now doomed to hell no matter if they repent or not. I reject that ideology.

Your input serves to explain why there are so many different variations of Christianity.
However, I am curious about your last post.

You write only of marrying a woman who divorced without cause, but say nothing about a man who divorces a wife without cause. What if he is the one who has committed adultery?What if he divorces his innocent wife in order to marry the woman with whom he committed adultery? I would think that his second marriage would be invalid at its inception, as would the second marriage of a woman who divorced her first husband without cause, so there would be no second "sin" of divorce.

Is Newt Gingrich actually married? Is trump? Did each divorce his previous wife, or wives, because they committed adultery? Either both guys' first wives were adulterous hussies, or these two guys committed adultery, divorced innocent spouses, and then entered into sham "marriages," more than once.

So I tend to put myself into the example, and obviously I am not going to marry a man. However, I see nothing in scripture that somehow the rules are different between genders.

You are getting deeper into the weeds of this particular topic, and I'll openly admit to you that I am not a Ph.D in theology.

However, here is my best understanding:

The only time there is no sin of divorce, is when you divorce with cause. The man is sleeping around with other women, and has no intention of stopping. That is divorce with cause, and I believe the woman can walk away utterly blameless.

Another example, would be if you married under false pretense. So if the guy says he has never been married before, and the woman finds out he was married before, and divorced.... I believe that the woman can have the marriage annulled, and I believe the woman can walk away utterly blame before G-d.

However, if there is no cause... if the man loves his wife... and the man has no relations with any other woman (barring polygamy obviously), and he has remained faithful and true to his wife....

Then I do not believe that it is Biblical to divorce. Regardless of whatever mistakes and sins were committed prior to the marriage.... at the point of marriage did the person make a vow

"With this ring I thee wed, and all my worldly goods I thee endow. In sickness and in health, in poverty or in wealth, 'til death do us part."

If you made a vow, you should keep it. If you divorce, without cause, then there is sin. The solution to a first sin of divorce, is not a second sin of divorce.

The Bible does state when it is allowable to divorce. Even then though if you remarry or marry someone who has divorced you are committing adultery.

Is Newt Gingrich actually married? Is trump? Did each divorce his previous wife, or wives, because they committed adultery? Either both guys' first wives were adulterous hussies, or these two guys committed adultery, divorced innocent spouses, and then entered into sham "marriages," more than once.

Well first, Newt Gingrich is not Jesus Christ. Donald Trump is not Jesus Christ. There is only one pure model for what a Christian is, and how they should live. That's Jesus Christ.

But yet that is exactly what you expect out of Pete.

Second, I was never convinced that Donald Trump was even a Christian. I have no idea about Newt at all.

As far as, are they married? It seems to me that they are both married.

Whether their marriage is a sham or not, is impossible for me to say. I have no idea what their marriages are like, and I don't trust the opinion driven media to give me an answer in either direction.

Lastly, everyone knows Trump is bad with women. This was well established decades ago.

The difference between Trump and Pete, is that Trump isn't saying "I'm a Christian, and the Bible says what I'm doing is fine".

If Trump did say something as ridiculous, then I would be just as much a critic of that. Nor is Trump making up stuff like, salvation depends on being useful. Which I would also be critical of.

Again, Pete is speaking about himself. You can not in any way comment on what Pete says God has placed on him. He places different things on different people.

In fact, you could say that Trump even knows what he did was wrong, or he would not have tried to pay off the porn star. That's still leagues better than Pete saying it is not wrong, and he's proud of it.

Noted, committing adultery and then paying off a porn star is not as bad as Pete being in a loving committed relationship.

But yet that is exactly what you expect out of Pete.
Again, Pete is speaking about himself. You can not in any way comment on what Pete says God has placed on him. He places different things on different people.

No that is not exactly what I expect out of Pete.

There is a huge difference between a man who does what is evil, are not Christian.... verses a man who does what is evil, and tells everyone that G-d says it's fine.

Huge massive difference. I don't see Newt or Donald saying "Yeah I did this, and Jesus Christ is fine with it". Do you have any quotes like that? I will criticize either or both for that.

I have heard Trump for example post that people in power do this all the time. I thought he was an idiot when he said that, and still do.

But Trump did not say "yeah I screwed Stormy, and Jesus said that's ok". If he had said that, then I would clearly have a huge issue with that, just as much as Pete saying he's a gay Christian, and salvation is by deeds.

Let me give you another example from the other side:

If you go back and look at all my posts about Barnie Frank, the nearly all of them are about bad policies, and maybe a few referring to a prostitution ring he operated out of his Washington apartment.

However I never really cared that he was gay. I didn't care he had a male lover. In fact, I think this post right here, could be the first time I ever mentioned it. Why? Because I don't expect people who do not believe in the Christian faith, to follow the Christian faith.

Barnie Never claimed to be Christian, so I wouldn't expect him to follow a code of conduct he doesn't believe in.

Pete claims to be Christian, and he's very open about it, which is why he even said something like "salvation" is through being "useful". Salvation is not exclusively a Christian term, but pretty close.

When Pete claims to be Christian, but directly contradicts fundamentals of Christian faith, it is our duty to mark them and oppose them.

Noted, committing adultery and then paying off a porn star is not as bad as Pete being in a loving committed relationship.

If you do not claim that Christianity condones adultery and paying off a porn star, but you do claim that being in a loving committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to Christianity...... then the answer absolutely yes.

It is way worse to claim something is not sin in the Christian faith, than to do something that is sinful, and NOT claim Christianity accepts it. Way worse... by a wide margin.

One person is merely doing something that is wrong.

The other person is directly undermining the Christian faith. That is a million times worse. Yes, absolutely. You are entirely correct.

The bible is not infallible or inerrant. It is a collection of selected ancient works that reflect of opinions of a small group of people who were lucky enough at the time to be literate. There is nothing to support the idea that being heterosexual is an essential tenet of the Christian faith or that Buttigieg's marriage undermines the Christian faith. Our understanding of humans and of this world has grown over the centuries.

Moreover, "Christianity" is an umbrella term. There is not one set of beliefs that is universally held.

But if we do not stray from the legalistic confines of your view of Christianity, your comments that you can't tell whether Gingrich's and trump's marriages are a sham, that you
have no idea what their marriages are like, that you don't trust the media, that you don't know how the current "wives" of these two feel about them are irrelevant. By "biblical" analysis, no valid marriage exists in either case because the husband is still married to his first wife, unless she died before he "married" again. He has not been released from his initial vows and so was not free to marry again. One cannot "divorce" someone to whom one was not married in the first place.

And this is where you and I will disagree Lysistrata. And that's ok. I do not expect you to follow a G-d you do not believe in. To us, in the Biblical Christian faith, the Bible is not only infallible and inerrant, it is the words of G-d himself.

Now I get that the translations are not perfect, and that is why Christian pastors are trained to read and understand the original texts, and those pastors teach people like me, as best they can, what the texts mean.

There is nothing to support the idea that being heterosexual is an essential tenet of the Christian faith or that Buttigieg's marriage undermines the Christian faith.​

When Pete says that Salvation is by being useful, he is undermining the Christian faith.

When Pete Says he is a Christian, and openly homosexual, he is undermining the Christian faith.

Both of those, undermine clear Christian Biblical doctrine.

By "biblical" analysis, no valid marriage exists in either case because the husband is still married to his first wife, unless she died before he "married" again. He has not been released from his initial vows and so was not free to marry again. One cannot "divorce" someone to whom one was not married in the first place.

I do not know why either of those people divorced their first wives. They may have divorced with cause, and they may not. I don't know that.

Moreover, I don't even believe that Donald is a Christian. I have very little expectation that Donald follow Christian morals, anymore than I expect you to follow Christian morals.

Donald is not portraying himself as a devout Christian either. If he did, then I would be far more critical of his actions, given they do not follow Christian doctrine.

That said, you seem to be implying something in the scriptures, that I personally don't see.

You seem to be implying that if a couple should not get married, that this means if they do, then their marriage does not exist, or is a sham, or is invalid.

I don't see that in the scriptures. I don't see that it says somewhere, that if it is a sin to marry someone, that if you do marry that person, that your marriage is annulled, or that you are required to divorce.

Now if you can find any part of scripture that says that, I would agree with you.

The closest thing to a answer to this discussion is this:

And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
-1 Cor 7:13​

Now this is applicable because a Christian is forbidden from marrying a non-Christian.

So if a Christian woman marries a non-christian man, this is sin. The woman should not marry the man.

Nevertheless, the passage above, indicates clearly that they are in fact married, even if the marriage was sin. Not only that, but it specifically says if the non-christian spouse is willing to live with them, that they should not divorce.

 

[Andylusion]

So I came up with another way to put this, that might be easier to understand.

Say two men joined the international Vegan Society, and both end up in management.

After working there for several years, Tim goes out to celebrate with some buddies. Who knows why, maybe their favorite team won the super bowl. So there they are drinking some good hooch, and then out comes the hot wings. Platters full of hot wings, and before Tim joined the international vegan society, he loved hot wings.

So he's sitting there, all his buddies are shoving hot wings at him, and he decide oh what the heck... and starts chowing down. Next you see a photo of Tim all over the internet with hot wings sticking out of his face.

On the other hand, there is Bob. Now Bob has never eaten meat in his entire life. He's invited to speak at a university, and stands up on the stage in front of a large crowd and says "yeah, we shouldn't eat meat. However it's fine if you do. It's not a big deal, but we would like to promote eating vegetables, but there is nothing wrong with eating meat now and then."

Now between Bob and Tim, which one did damage to the Vegan Society?

Was it Tim? Because he actually ate meat, and Bob did not.

No, it was actually Bob that damaged the Vegan Society. He directly undermined some of the fundamental values of the Vegan society.

Tim only violated the core doctrine of the Vegan Society. Bob, even though he didn't violate it, directly undermined the core doctrine of the Vegan Society.

Undermining the core moral values of Christianity is by far, much worse, than simply violating the core values of Christianity.

Again Paul was a murderer... but he repented. King David was an adulterer... but he repented.

Neither tried to fundamentally change the moral values, that they themselves violated.

Now as near as I can tell, Trump isn't very Repentant. I don't know for sure either way, but the Bible is clear what happens to someone who is not repentant of their sins.

However, between Trump and Pete, which one is directly trying to undermine the moral doctrine of Christianity?

Pete is. Pete is saying he is Gay, and a Christian, and that G-d accepts that. That is completely against Christian doctrine of moral values. Pete is a false profit, and is far more damaging than anything Trump is doing, by a wide margin.

That's why you see Christians rebuking, and calling out Pete. And rightly so.

Now if Trump comes out tomorrow, and says Jesus is fine with him banging porn stars, then I would be against Trump just as much. But that still wouldn't let Pete off the hook. It would just mean that now Pete and Trump are on the same level.

You're just desperate to twist this into something it isn't. And the vegan theme still doesn't work.

Once again ----- Butttigieg said *NOTHING* about sex. He said things about doing charitable works. How is it you're so determined to make it about sex and personal lives? Isn't that a little bizarre?

Well I've explained exactly why it all matters in this case, and you simply refuse to tolerate any opinion other than your own. Which ironically makes you a bigot.

Nevertheless, you have a right to be wrong.

I do, but I choose not to exercise that right.

You on the other hand invented content that was not there as I just pointed out. And you have the right to prove me wrong.

As I said, you have the right to be wrong.
We can keep going as long as you like, but you'll just keep making false claims, and I'll keep telling you that you are allowed to keep being wrong.

You can do that all you like. But what you can't do is refute the fact that you made up content that Buttigieg didn't even bring up. You also can't refute that that is a dishonest tactic.

You have the right to be wrong. You are allowed to think whatever you want. It does not bother me.

 

[Andylusion]

But yet that is exactly what you expect out of Pete.
Again, Pete is speaking about himself. You can not in any way comment on what Pete says God has placed on him. He places different things on different people.

No that is not exactly what I expect out of Pete.

There is a huge difference between a man who does what is evil, are not Christian.... verses a man who does what is evil, and tells everyone that G-d says it's fine.

Huge massive difference. I don't see Newt or Donald saying "Yeah I did this, and Jesus Christ is fine with it". Do you have any quotes like that? I will criticize either or both for that.

I have heard Trump for example post that people in power do this all the time. I thought he was an idiot when he said that, and still do.

But Trump did not say "yeah I screwed Stormy, and Jesus said that's ok". If he had said that, then I would clearly have a huge issue with that, just as much as Pete saying he's a gay Christian, and salvation is by deeds.

Let me give you another example from the other side:

If you go back and look at all my posts about Barnie Frank, the nearly all of them are about bad policies, and maybe a few referring to a prostitution ring he operated out of his Washington apartment.

However I never really cared that he was gay. I didn't care he had a male lover. In fact, I think this post right here, could be the first time I ever mentioned it. Why? Because I don't expect people who do not believe in the Christian faith, to follow the Christian faith.

Barnie Never claimed to be Christian, so I wouldn't expect him to follow a code of conduct he doesn't believe in.

Pete claims to be Christian, and he's very open about it, which is why he even said something like "salvation" is through being "useful". Salvation is not exclusively a Christian term, but pretty close.

When Pete claims to be Christian, but directly contradicts fundamentals of Christian faith, it is our duty to mark them and oppose them.

Noted, committing adultery and then paying off a porn star is not as bad as Pete being in a loving committed relationship.

If you do not claim that Christianity condones adultery and paying off a porn star, but you do claim that being in a loving committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to Christianity...... then the answer absolutely yes.

It is way worse to claim something is not sin in the Christian faith, than to do something that is sinful, and NOT claim Christianity accepts it. Way worse... by a wide margin.

One person is merely doing something that is wrong.

The other person is directly undermining the Christian faith. That is a million times worse. Yes, absolutely. You are entirely correct.

People openly living in adultery don't claim it's OK and that they are Christians? You've tried to make the argument that it's ok.

No I didn't. You are just refusing to listen to what I said.

Further, as I said before.... you are not a Christian, because you say you are a Christian.

You are a Christian when you live it out.

If you are living with another man's wife, then you are not living it out, and are not a Christian.

Even Jesus himself said this:

Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like.

They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
​

Luke 6:47-29

So saying people are living in adultery and that's ok.... no it's not. We covered this already. Multiple times too.

You seem excessively desperate to make up stuff that I have already contradicted, and then claim that I said the opposite of what I did.

If you are not going to discuss this with any integrity on your side.... then why are you bothering to discuss anything? You can just make up what other people say on your own, right?

I asked you earlier if you condemn those in your church that have remarried. You avoided the question.

I thought I answered that. The answer is, it depends on the situation. I would have to know each individual case, to know whether or not it is Biblical to remarry.

However, even in cases where the couple should not get married... if they already are married, I do not believe they are in some sort of 'continuous sin'.

Again, I would look to David and Bathsheba. G-d did not require them to divorce, even though it was clear they were sinning by getting married.

Now as I stated before, I am not a Ph.D in theology, and it is entirely possible that in the future I could gain more information on this matter, and change my mind.

However, as I best understand it today... even if the marriage was not Biblical, and I would try and convince the parties involved to not get married.... if they did, and there is no cause for divorce in that marriage, then I do not believe they should divorce, committing additional sin, just because the marriage was not Biblical begin with. Two wrongs, does not make a right.

But you expect Pete to divorce.

No, actually that is not what I want Pete to do.

I want Pete to choose one of two things.

First, he could become a Christian. Which would in fact require him to stop being Homosexual.

But I am also perfectly fine with him, staying a Homosexual, and stop lying that he is a Christian.
Leave his fake Christianity.

However, as long as he continues to preach false gospel of "salvation by being useful" and claiming that you can be homosexual and a Christian..... then I will continue to call him out for his lying and false teaching.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

More theology lessons from a God hater.

Every time you ask the Left to demonstrate their usefulness to others, it's under the banner of some government redistribution program, transparently used to buy votes from the most needy.

Leftists are only incredibly charitable with other people's money.

Pete Buttigieg Twists Christianity: 'Salvation' Depends on Being 'Useful'

What would we expect from a man who does things too shameful for the last generation to even mention? He doesnt get to lecture anyone

 

[Andylusion]

More theology lessons from a God hater.

Every time you ask the Left to demonstrate their usefulness to others, it's under the banner of some government redistribution program, transparently used to buy votes from the most needy.

Leftists are only incredibly charitable with other people's money.

Pete Buttigieg Twists Christianity: 'Salvation' Depends on Being 'Useful'

What would we expect from a man who does things too shameful for the last generation to even mention? He doesnt get to lecture anyone

Does not seem that hard of a concept, does it.

 

[pknopp]

So I came up with another way to put this, that might be easier to understand.

Say two men joined the international Vegan Society, and both end up in management.

After working there for several years, Tim goes out to celebrate with some buddies. Who knows why, maybe their favorite team won the super bowl. So there they are drinking some good hooch, and then out comes the hot wings. Platters full of hot wings, and before Tim joined the international vegan society, he loved hot wings.

So he's sitting there, all his buddies are shoving hot wings at him, and he decide oh what the heck... and starts chowing down. Next you see a photo of Tim all over the internet with hot wings sticking out of his face.

On the other hand, there is Bob. Now Bob has never eaten meat in his entire life. He's invited to speak at a university, and stands up on the stage in front of a large crowd and says "yeah, we shouldn't eat meat. However it's fine if you do. It's not a big deal, but we would like to promote eating vegetables, but there is nothing wrong with eating meat now and then."

Now between Bob and Tim, which one did damage to the Vegan Society?

Was it Tim? Because he actually ate meat, and Bob did not.

No, it was actually Bob that damaged the Vegan Society. He directly undermined some of the fundamental values of the Vegan society.

Tim only violated the core doctrine of the Vegan Society. Bob, even though he didn't violate it, directly undermined the core doctrine of the Vegan Society.

Undermining the core moral values of Christianity is by far, much worse, than simply violating the core values of Christianity.

Again Paul was a murderer... but he repented. King David was an adulterer... but he repented.

Neither tried to fundamentally change the moral values, that they themselves violated.

Now as near as I can tell, Trump isn't very Repentant. I don't know for sure either way, but the Bible is clear what happens to someone who is not repentant of their sins.

However, between Trump and Pete, which one is directly trying to undermine the moral doctrine of Christianity?

Pete is. Pete is saying he is Gay, and a Christian, and that G-d accepts that. That is completely against Christian doctrine of moral values. Pete is a false profit, and is far more damaging than anything Trump is doing, by a wide margin.

That's why you see Christians rebuking, and calling out Pete. And rightly so.

Now if Trump comes out tomorrow, and says Jesus is fine with him banging porn stars, then I would be against Trump just as much. But that still wouldn't let Pete off the hook. It would just mean that now Pete and Trump are on the same level.

You're just desperate to twist this into something it isn't. And the vegan theme still doesn't work.

Once again ----- Butttigieg said *NOTHING* about sex. He said things about doing charitable works. How is it you're so determined to make it about sex and personal lives? Isn't that a little bizarre?

Well I've explained exactly why it all matters in this case, and you simply refuse to tolerate any opinion other than your own. Which ironically makes you a bigot.

Nevertheless, you have a right to be wrong.

I do, but I choose not to exercise that right.

You on the other hand invented content that was not there as I just pointed out. And you have the right to prove me wrong.

As I said, you have the right to be wrong.
We can keep going as long as you like, but you'll just keep making false claims, and I'll keep telling you that you are allowed to keep being wrong.

You can do that all you like. But what you can't do is refute the fact that you made up content that Buttigieg didn't even bring up. You also can't refute that that is a dishonest tactic.

The Bible speaks about dishonesty also......

 

[pknopp]

People openly living in adultery don't claim it's OK and that they are Christians? You've tried to make the argument that it's ok.

No I didn't. You are just refusing to listen to what I said.

Further, as I said before.... you are not a Christian, because you say you are a Christian.

You are a Christian when you live it out.

If you are living with another man's wife, then you are not living it out, and are not a Christian.

Even Jesus himself said this:

Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like.

They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
​

Luke 6:47-29

So saying people are living in adultery and that's ok.... no it's not. We covered this already. Multiple times too.

You seem excessively desperate to make up stuff that I have already contradicted, and then claim that I said the opposite of what I did.

If you are not going to discuss this with any integrity on your side.... then why are you bothering to discuss anything? You can just make up what other people say on your own, right?

I asked you earlier if you condemn those in your church that have remarried. You avoided the question.

I thought I answered that. The answer is, it depends on the situation. I would have to know each individual case, to know whether or not it is Biblical to remarry.

However, even in cases where the couple should not get married... if they already are married, I do not believe they are in some sort of 'continuous sin'.

Again, I would look to David and Bathsheba. G-d did not require them to divorce, even though it was clear they were sinning by getting married.

Now as I stated before, I am not a Ph.D in theology, and it is entirely possible that in the future I could gain more information on this matter, and change my mind.

However, as I best understand it today... even if the marriage was not Biblical, and I would try and convince the parties involved to not get married.... if they did, and there is no cause for divorce in that marriage, then I do not believe they should divorce, committing additional sin, just because the marriage was not Biblical begin with. Two wrongs, does not make a right.

But you expect Pete to divorce.

No, actually that is not what I want Pete to do.

I want Pete to choose one of two things.

First, he could become a Christian.

He says he is and it's never going to be up to you whether he is or not.

 

[Pogo]

You're just desperate to twist this into something it isn't. And the vegan theme still doesn't work.

Once again ----- Butttigieg said *NOTHING* about sex. He said things about doing charitable works. How is it you're so determined to make it about sex and personal lives? Isn't that a little bizarre?

Well I've explained exactly why it all matters in this case, and you simply refuse to tolerate any opinion other than your own. Which ironically makes you a bigot.

Nevertheless, you have a right to be wrong.

I do, but I choose not to exercise that right.

You on the other hand invented content that was not there as I just pointed out. And you have the right to prove me wrong.

As I said, you have the right to be wrong.
We can keep going as long as you like, but you'll just keep making false claims, and I'll keep telling you that you are allowed to keep being wrong.

You can do that all you like. But what you can't do is refute the fact that you made up content that Buttigieg didn't even bring up. You also can't refute that that is a dishonest tactic.

You have the right to be wrong. You are allowed to think whatever you want. It does not bother me.

What it doesn't do is ---- leave you wiggle room. You own it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Noted, committing adultery and then paying off a porn star is not as bad as Pete being in a loving committed relationship.

So I came up with another way to put this, that might be easier to understand.

Say two men joined the international Vegan Society, and both end up in management.

After working there for several years, Tim goes out to celebrate with some buddies. Who knows why, maybe their favorite team won the super bowl. So there they are drinking some good hooch, and then out comes the hot wings. Platters full of hot wings, and before Tim joined the international vegan society, he loved hot wings.

So he's sitting there, all his buddies are shoving hot wings at him, and he decide oh what the heck... and starts chowing down. Next you see a photo of Tim all over the internet with hot wings sticking out of his face.

On the other hand, there is Bob. Now Bob has never eaten meat in his entire life. He's invited to speak at a university, and stands up on the stage in front of a large crowd and says "yeah, we shouldn't eat meat. However it's fine if you do. It's not a big deal, but we would like to promote eating vegetables, but there is nothing wrong with eating meat now and then."

Now between Bob and Tim, which one did damage to the Vegan Society?

Was it Tim? Because he actually ate meat, and Bob did not.

No, it was actually Bob that damaged the Vegan Society. He directly undermined some of the fundamental values of the Vegan society.

Tim only violated the core doctrine of the Vegan Society. Bob, even though he didn't violate it, directly undermined the core doctrine of the Vegan Society.

Undermining the core moral values of Christianity is by far, much worse, than simply violating the core values of Christianity.

Again Paul was a murderer... but he repented. King David was an adulterer... but he repented.

Neither tried to fundamentally change the moral values, that they themselves violated.

Now as near as I can tell, Trump isn't very Repentant. I don't know for sure either way, but the Bible is clear what happens to someone who is not repentant of their sins.

However, between Trump and Pete, which one is directly trying to undermine the moral doctrine of Christianity?

Pete is. Pete is saying he is Gay, and a Christian, and that G-d accepts that. That is completely against Christian doctrine of moral values. Pete is a false profit, and is far more damaging than anything Trump is doing, by a wide margin.

That's why you see Christians rebuking, and calling out Pete. And rightly so.

Now if Trump comes out tomorrow, and says Jesus is fine with him banging porn stars, then I would be against Trump just as much. But that still wouldn't let Pete off the hook. It would just mean that now Pete and Trump are on the same level.

You're just desperate to twist this into something it isn't. And the vegan theme still doesn't work.

Once again ----- Butttigieg said *NOTHING* about sex. He said things about doing charitable works. How is it you're so determined to make it about sex and personal lives? Isn't that a little bizarre?

Well I've explained exactly why it all matters in this case, and you simply refuse to tolerate any opinion other than your own. Which ironically makes you a bigot.

Nevertheless, you have a right to be wrong.

I read your pretzel logic but it flies in the face of what Jesus said in the Parable of the Good Samaratan. The Samaratan was a Gentile, and not Jewish at all, and yet Jesus said that the Pharasee, who passed by on the other side of the road would not see the Kingdom of Heaven because he wasn't obeying God's Commandments on treatment of others.

There is very little about sexuality in either the Old or New Testament, and what there is ambiguous at best. The story of Lot and his daughters can be used to condone incest. Onan is used as an example that masturbation is bad but Onan wasn't struck down because he masturbated. He was struck down because he refused to obey God's wish that he impregnate his sister-in-law and give his brother an heir. This hasn't stopped churches from claiming it was the act of masturbation that got him into trouble, not the disobediance.

The only direct sexual prohibition is in the 10 Commandments, and that is "Thou shalt not commit adultery". If God had a problem with homosexuality, he never expressed it. Neither did Jesus. Paul did, but Paul never spoke to nor met Jesus and could easily be projecting his own prejudices.