BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I wouldn't call the Vox piece a "pearl" but just another dog-whistle lib tripe, excuse the mixed metaphor. Yeah, define "evangelicals" first and then account for the anti-Hil vote among the so-labeled evangelicals and note the lack of any alternative candidate, Democrat, who isn't in favor of letting live babies die in the delivery room or tearing them limb-from-limb in the womb.

I always appreciate your explaining yourself and your theology but this topic is mostly about you and only incidentally about any of us who either voted for Trump or who voted for neither Hil or Trump (moi). It's lame and late for you to assail your self-defined evangelicals because I've been doing this for years here, noting that evangelicals favored the candidate who declared himself not to be born again (McCain) over the candidate who declared himself a "dedicated follower of Christ" (Obama). There's irony here, bruthur, if you care to look for it, not just hypocrisy.

I don't know an inerrantist who doesn't find some Bible passages problematic and who rely on the considerable weight of harmonization, exceptions, and the like.

I don't feel the least bit compelled to ponder Trump's faults, since I've already said his life is pretty much all I have preached against. Still, Dems will have to come up with something new to get my vote.

I accept the revealed body of truth in Scripture, the primary doctrines are settled: Triune God, deity of Christ, etc. I don't know what you mean when you speak of "Christ as a divine example" since that lacks theological definition. Your reliance on the Holy Spirit as a guide with no anchor of revealed truth is less preferable to me than to accept the problems of inerrancy. You are subject to the latest whim and caprice of human thought.

And I care litte for what you capitalize or super-capitalize. It's up to you.

But I'm looking forward to the campaign of a couple of dozen Dems of all assortments. Should be fun.

Dr. Ralph "Blackface" Northam is one source. I'm unapologetic about framing this with the extreme examples but would be satisfied if any dem candidate would express some reservations about late term and partial birth abortions. The dem herd apparently culls any whom would so dissent.

The context here is evangelicals supporting Trump. My point is that there would be a greater market for evangelicals who support dems if this issue were addressed. No part of the dem machine would permit such.

I would like to weigh in here, but I'm too busy and our home internet is down. Maybe tomorrow if I remember.

You ignore the "if" and the "maybes". Find a dem that will state that the child's life should be preserved.

That you equate this to hospice care is appalling.

Perhaps women who bear externally unviable but undead fetuses/babies ought to be imprisoned for failing to hold the fetuses/children in their wombs until they died there.

What I refuse to do, William, is to absolutize abortion and equate all abortion with murder. Does that mean that I favor abortion as a means of birth control? No. However, until the men who impregnate women and leave them with the consequences are made before the law to bear equal responsibility, then I will maintain a very small ambiguity until the responsibility and punishments are made equal.

I'm not convinced conservative Republicans care about babies dying. If they did, they'd have stopped this at the many points when they had an opportunity. As far as I'm concerned, until they're consistent on sanctity of human life and willing to protect kids in their classrooms this is just rhetoric they trot out when they're losing elections.