Do they?
Some of Trump avowed goals seem in line with the evangelical right's, but I haven't heard many trumpet his virtue.
You did not quote the part: "I do NOT get the feeling...." I would not call Trump an apostle Paul. It was Obama who came in as an alleged Muslim and left an alleged Christian. Was that a personal decision, or peer pressure from the established ways of doing things as leader of the USA?
One can mock freedom of religion, but it is not just freedom of. It is the freedom against the government establishing a religious way of directing one's life. Christianity even as a governing authority really has no ability to send people to hell. Atheist would live just fine under a theocracy, minus the point they would be unable to actually govern.
As the saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." As long as he rants against and tries to put down the people they despise, they'll put up with him.
I don't see it as being an enemy, but that seems to be a general default statement when it comes to "taking sides". Sure Christians are human and capable of hatred. Is there a difference between strong emotional distaste and hatred? It would seem to me the difference is between who and what to hate. I would like for someone to point out where it says any where, a religious person is supposed to hate another person who they disagree with. I would think that hatred of other people is a human problem, not a religious one. Most religions have a list of do's and do not's. I have never seen a list of people to hate or despise as you call it. Hillary may be a hypocrite, but that is not a reason to despise her. Just like Trump is despised for certain actions, it is the actions and results of actions that go against the conscious of all humans, unless they just do not care about such actions or results from actions. It is not a sin to be a human, but the human condition is the sin. Every one judges and are judged by all, because of the very fact that the human condition is sin. If one can point out there is no sin, then what would you call the inclination to hate others, instead of the ability to listen to them?
The point is we treat all humans with the same respect, even if they do not deserve it (in our opinion). We are all at fault. Having said that, we are in a democracy, and we get the chance to voice our opinions on how we are governed. That is the point, even if there are others who do not agree with how we think that life needs to be lived out. It is natural to hate people. It is hard to let others take advantage of us, or put us down. The ability to remove an action from the individual, and just view them as an equal is the most difficult task, but it is not impossible. Even being able to do that does not make one a Christian or even religious. It is the ability to rise above the human condition. Christianity is more a "forgiving others" religion, but I doubt hardly any one even understands or practices the notion. It's leadership over the last close to 2000 years, have done mostly the opposite. Kill and excommunicate all who oppose us is not the central theme of Christianity, but a mode of governing others, and retaining the ability to govern. It is understandable given it's tract record that any endeavor on the part of a Christian at voicing an opinion on how one is governed comes as a threat to every one who feels threatened.
The irony is that any one who feels threatened by Christianity are just re-enforcing the point: Christianity has the ability to be a powerful force. That was an alleged prediction given by Jesus himself even before Constantine decided to turn the government over to the Roman church. It has been pointed out that Constantine understood this and not as fulfilling prophecy, but as an insurance of keeping the Roman Empire alive longer than it was naturally supposed to be. What is even more interesting is that when communism came along, the Roman church hedged it's bets and despite concerns from traditionalist, decided to use communism to keep it's influence alive. So it would seem that this election did have the backing of the church, even if that fact is not accepted by most posters here. And, yes there is part of the church that is liberal. That started when Jimmy Carter became President, if not before. Even with the voiced concerns of the founding fathers it is near impossible to separate the church from the state. It is how Bill Clinton was elected as well. I would say that the church voted both ways this time, so there may have been more of the church for Trump, or the fact that the church equates to the establishment more than we want to admit it, and Trump will be the one to break the cycle of the church being so involved in the government.. Perhaps Hillary was counting too much on the church, especially on her constant attacks on Trump's behavior as opposing the "Christian value". To me, Hillary is not an enemy, but represents the fact that the church has been too much involved in government. If Trump is the one to break the cycle, then most secular minded people should be happy, that in the US, the separation of church and state may be a reality no matter how painful it is to that end.
It may be too late, because most governments are not run as businesses, but moral arbitrators. While the evangelicals may be split on the issues of separation of church and state, and having a moral government, it seems by far the liberal Christians who feel more threatened about how they are being governed. It does not matter who governs to a person that holds to the strict separation of church and state. Yet that powerful group seems to be more threatening than the church who governs in a liberal way. It would seem to me that as a secular person one would want a business like government, instead of a moral/religious one. Communism was the original Christian concept. It was the marriage of hierarchy and kingship that brought forth capitalism and even the model of the boardroom. Morality had little to do with it, as the point of forgiveness, could be administered at the end of one's life and all would be well. Having a centralized government is the secular need for survival. It is also how the church acts in a secular manner. But giving up control is the theme of those who are afraid of the church and how the church itself should operate to make it fair for all humanity.
There is no "an antichrist" in the bible. There is "spirit of antichrist", or that which denies the savior and existed in the period of the penning of the Bible and long before. 1 John 4:3.
All this talk about "an antichrist" is made-up fluff from the 18th through 20th centuries, and it's really too bad.
It is not made up fluff. Now people trying to explain how it happens are things of Hollywood movies and relatively entertaining, but to say there is no factual biblical account of an antichrist event, would remove parts of Revelation from the Bible. It is not something the church brings about. It is something that God will allow despite what the church itself does or does not do. It is part of the restoration of the nation of Israel. I would go so far as to say that the church will not even be around to witness it, but I guess that point is even more debated than an actual antichrist. The point of the antichrist is the point that the Jews are still looking for a Messiah.
