I disagree with that assessment. Artistic expression and creativity is not "an affirmation of sin," even by the most anachronistic and draconian interpretations of the Bible.
I agree with you in the broad and general sense, though I am not referring to a sweeping generalization as the straw effigy you erected does. I am referring to this specific application of artistic expression and creativity. What is true as a generalization is not necessarily true in every specific instance. In this instance, there was a promotion, affirmation, and glamorization of pride and gluttonous indulgence in consumption, whether it be food, entertainment, etc. This indulgence is a sin. It was very true to the pagan roots of the Olympic games.
I never said it does. Almost no other candidate in history has attracted loony zealots in the same number that Trump has. Probably because he does present himself as a "savior" of sorts, creating imaginary problems and then suggesting he's the only one who can fix them.
But you did.
Supporters of Trump may as well be worshiping the anti-Christ instead
Here you equated supporting Trump with worshiping the Antichrist. "May as well" equates the objects of discussion. Perhaps you worded what you intended to communicate poorly?
I stand by that statement insofar as Trump supporters are concerned. I'd wager that at least half of them have never read the bible, and that at least half of those who have did not have the literacy skills to understand its intent. The modern Republican party is much more closely aligned with the old testament than the new.
Biblical illiteracy is not exclusive to Trump supporters nor are the biblically illiterate the only people that support Trump. I would actually assert that greater than half of Trump supporters have not made any real effort to read the Bible, being complacent with the "virtue" of reading a daily verse. I cannot make any sort of judgment on general literacy ability. In my area, illiteracy seems to be independent of political ideology. From what I've observed, the occurrence of an abusive, including negligent, home-life during the formative years is a much more significant factor contributing to illiteracy. I suppose your area is different in the abuse and neglect follow partisan preferences, though I've failed to find any substantiation of such correlation in my own observations.
I'm not sure what you mean by the GOP being more closely aligned with the Old Testament. During the RNC, the blatant syncretism was evidence that the GOP is a populist party like the Democratic Party, being in contempt of the entirety of Scripture. You also seem to imply that the Old and New Testament are not in harmony. Why? Have you read the text in full yourself? I've read through the entirety of the Bible multiple times and I do not observe any disunity between the Old and New Testaments.
What about the Quran and Tanakh?
The Quran is extrabiblical text. Muhammad was illiterate and, when you read through the Hadith of Bukhari, likely demon possessed. His supposed encounter with Gabriel was a demonic encounter rather than an angelic encounter. I would recommend reading the Tanakh (Old Testament) to learn more about what an angelic encounter is. You will also find Christophanies, appearances of Christ preincarnate, in the Old Testament/Tanakh, such as Judg. 6:11-24. In these Christophany phenomenon, you will notice that the angel of the Lord does not deny worship. This is atypical of an angel. Angels always point people to worship God. God, even preincarnate, would have no reason to redirect worship to Himself.
I'd say that the odd orange one has a lot of worshipers based on the behavior of some of these people. Why else would they strap pads to their heads and wear diapers?
Everybody is wearing face diapers as a virtue signal. Some prefer to express their supposed virtue by covering their mouth, while the others prefer covering the right ear. The next face diaper virtue signaling trend will probably cover one or both eyes.
Also isn't one of the big things about being a Christian to not shove your religion in people's faces?
I think it depends on how one defines "shoving religion down people's faces."
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:16-20, LSB).
If the definition encompasses the Great Commission, then no. If the definition encompasses forcing one of the unelect to attend corporate worship, then
no yes [typo]. This would be a disservice to the congregation as corporate worship is reserved for those within the Body of Christ. It is not for those that are without. Unbelievers need not participate nor even attend. Though, this does not exclude the elect from the obligation of the Great Commission of evangelism. We are tasked with spreading the Gospel so that all the elect may hear and come to Christ. If you have heard and you have denied, then by no means are you obligated to open your heart to the Gospel. You cannot do so even if you thought you wanted to anyway. It is only God who opens the hearts of the elect to accept Him as Lord and God in every aspect of their life, both public and private.
Kirbydogs
K3Nv2
BigOnYa
Xdqwerty
Psionic Roshambo
