How Christians reconcile supporting the devil

[Argus]

Donald Trump is about as far from being a Christian, about as far from a man who upholds Christian values and virtues as it's possible to find in a western country. I could easily make the case that Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy, was a far better representative of Christian virtues, through his long years of dedicated support for the downtrodden, his campaigning for womens rights and the rights of minorities and those improperly convicted in jails. 

Purely on his own self-admission, and on his own representation, without taking into account what others say, Trump is a hedonist of the first order, a selfish, wretched, covetous adulterer and sinner who has never shown any interest in helping others, but only in satisfying his own lust and narcissistic desire for fame and adulation. By all accounts, and by simple observation, a cruel and intolerant man with a mean streak a mile wide, it seems impossible that anyone who actually believes in Christian ideals would be anything but repulsed by Donald Trump. Yet any number of prominent political Christian leaders have endorsed him.

This despite the fairly obvious fact he has spent as little time in church as possible, has never read the bible, nor understands it (nor cares about it), and has, up until his run for president, taken positions entirely at odds with the social values Christians believe in, including a long history of supporting abortion.

Principled Christians, of course, do not support Trump. Christianity Today, the magazine founded by Billy Graham, in an editorial last week said “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us.”

The editorial criticized the Republican nominee in biblical terms. Quoting a list of sins that St. Paul condemns — “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry” — Crouch wrote, “this is an incredibly apt summary of Trump’s life to date.”

The fact so many self-described Christians continue to endorse Trump seems, to me, to lay bare their hypocrisy, and to raise the question of what kind of commitment their religion has when it can be ignored for perceived political gain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/11/christianity-today-blasts-trump-questions-support-for-someone-who-violates-all-that-is-sacred-to-us/

[cybercoma]

The rabid support of Trump from a great many from the Christian Right is the death knell of that voting block. They've lost all credibility as the voice of moral reason in America. Even if you don't buy that, at the very least they're eating themselves alive with the principled Christians taking a stand against those falling victim to the idolatry of Donald Trump. Trump's lasting accomplishment will be fracturing the right wing so deeply that it will be irreversible. The Tea Party was the wedge but Trump has been the mallet strike, severing the Republicans for good.

[eyeball]

So the next question is; how do principled conservatives reconcile supporting the right wing?

First thing they should do is straighten out their deeply flawed perception that corporations are people just like any other human beings.  

[cybercoma]

Just now, eyeball said:

So the next question is; how do principled conservatives reconcile supporting the right wing?

First thing they should do is straighten out their deeply flawed perception that corporations are people just like any other human beings.  

This isn't a rightwing problem. The damage being done by Trump is a bipartisan concern, to be sure. His rhetoric of the election being rigged is probably one of the most dangerous things he's done so far. It undermines the fundamental core of democratic freedom: the peaceful transition of power. Yet, on this forum alone, we can see people buying into this conspiracy theory garbage about Hillary stealing an election that hasn't even happened yet. His appeals to the second amendment people to "do something about Hillary winning" and now his insistence that there is no democracy in America, the system is rigged, is a direct threat to the peaceful transition of power through democratic elections. It is a call to arms. A call for violence and bloodshed. We've already seen him muse about imprisoning not just Hillary but other political opponents, including Republicans. He's leading chants at his rallies to lock up the women who have corroborated his boasts of sexual assault. And yet here we are, actually arguing with people who support this appalling, reprehensible attack on freedom, democracy, and peace. It's ludicrous and that's putting it as lightly as possible. 

[eyeball]

This problem is definitely a result of right wing in-sensibilities that have been piling up for years.

 

We're arguing with people who actually think Clinton is a lefty ffs.

[eyeball]

I still hope Trump Godzilla wins to be perfectly honest.  America deserves him.

[cybercoma]

This is the result of post-truth politics. It's the result of elections that focus on the candidates themselves instead of ideas and issues. Instead of focusing on policy, the arguments are about people. That's why you get people who make comments like this on Facebook, even in Canada:

Quote

Does [Trudeau] realize he's a complete moron and that his useless wife is a pretentious bitch.

Tell us how you really feel, Janice. But this has nothing to do with policies or legislation or problems facing the country. This is literally juvenile name-calling. It's emotionally charged nonsense from simple-minded people who don't discuss policy and issues. Politicians on both sides are to blame because the same kind of crap is said about rightwing politicians as well. Politicians are to blame because this is the tactic they've been using lately. They know people are easily manipulated and have figured out that they don't need to talk about the issues if they can just piss people off and stoke anger and hatred. The only way to combat this is to constantly point out to people that they're talking about people and not policies and that they should be focused on the issues and the policies to address them. Democracy is supposed to be the peaceful transition of power and there's nothing peaceful about calling the prime minister a moron and his wife a pretentious bitch. But this is what passes for political discussion in the comment sections on news stories all over the internet. Simple-minded people who are unable to talk about the issues just talk about people like they're tabloid editors. Post-truth politics is making us all slaves.

[kimmy]

3 hours ago, cybercoma said:

The rabid support of Trump from a great many from the Christian Right is the death knell of that voting block. They've lost all credibility as the voice of moral reason in America. Even if you don't buy that, at the very least they're eating themselves alive with the principled Christians taking a stand against those falling victim to the idolatry of Donald Trump.

It seems that the rejection of Trump by prominent conservative Christians like Albert Mohler and others has had little impact on the fanatical Trump supporters. I think the thing we've taken to calling "the religious right" is an entity that's not actually particularly religious but more tribal in nature.  It's largely white, largely rural, largely southern, as well as being Christian, and the ideas that unite it are more political than religious in nature.

 

3 hours ago, cybercoma said:

 Trump's lasting accomplishment will be fracturing the right wing so deeply that it will be irreversible. The Tea Party was the wedge but Trump has been the mallet strike, severing the Republicans for good.

It will be very interesting to see what happens next for the Republicans. There seems to be two different parties now.  John Kasich said as much yesterday-- if the party doesn't evolve, Kasich is leaving. Others like Romney and the Bushes are clearly also finished with the current direction of the Republican party.  But what will they do?

After the 2012 election, I signed up for the College Republicans so that I could read their post-election analysis of what went wrong. Their conclusion was that the party's direction was repellent to young voters-- the increasing focus on religiousity, the lack of inclusiveness to non-white voters, the hostility to gay rights, these were factors that lead to the party being badly rejected among voters under 30. With non-white and non-religious being rapidly growing demographics in the US, making the party more welcoming to those groups was seen as an important objective. 

But instead, the Republican party has basically doubled down on what made the 2012 election a failure.

-k

[Argus]

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

It seems that the rejection of Trump by prominent conservative Christians like Albert Mohler and others has had little impact on the fanatical Trump supporters. I think the thing we've taken to calling "the religious right" is an entity that's not actually particularly religious but more tribal in nature.  It's largely white, largely rural, largely southern, as well as being Christian, and the ideas that unite it are more political than religious in nature.

I understand this is political and not religious, but these are supposed to be religious people, and in a lot of ways Trump is the anti Christ (not the antiChrist). Or perhaps to put it more clearly, Jesus is the anti Trump. Everything Trump believes in and has demonstrate goes completely against everything Jesus preached. So how can a real Christian reconcile themselves with ignoring Jesus because Trump says he'll punish those damn Chinese for making cheaper toasters? So how can anyone who truly believes in his Christian faith support an unrepentant womanizing adulterer who ran gambling halls and strip clubs until he went bankrupt?

Trump stands for greed.

Jesus stood for generosity.

Trump is an egotistical narcissist

Jesus washed the feet of the disciples to demonstrate humility

Trump wants to take health care away from the sick

Jesus cared for the sick and lame

Trump loves war

Jesus loved peace

Trump is all about vengeance

Jesus was all about forgiveness

Trump is a congenital liar

Jesus spoke Gods word of truth

Trump is a cruel man

Jesus was kind

Trump is a hedonist

Jesus was a plain man

Trump is all about taking advantage of others

Jesus was all about self-sacrifice

 

 

 

[kimmy]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Trump stands for greed.

Jesus stood for generosity.

Trump is an egotistical narcissist

Jesus washed the feet of the disciples to demonstrate humility

 ...

I think you forgot "died a virgin" vs "grabs the pussy", but I completely agree with what you're saying. But I'm not the one you need to convince.

I should, however, point out that most of the things on your list could have been criticisms of the "religious right" in general long before Trump came along. Enthusiasm for guns and war, support for policies that benefit the wealthy,  lack of interest in healthcare, lack of compassion for the poor or the sick or the gays or the non-Christians... the religious right embodied all of these characteristics long before Trump decided to run for President.

I also think the religious right has adopted a dumbed-down version of Christianity. All you really need to be "religious right" is to hate abortion and hate gays and self-identify as a Christian. I think those are really the only issues that are required. Support for gun rights is also almost mandatory, even though Jesus had little to say on the subject. Because it's not religious, it's tribal... and if you want to be in that tribe, you'd better support guns.

 -k

[Moonlight Graham]

Conservatism in general is largely made up of anti-Christian moral outlooks of how society should work, with some exceptions.  I have no problems with conservative views, but I have a problem with holier-than-thou hypocrites.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Goddess]

Any religion can be used to justify any views.  They're all BS.  

[The_Squid]

These same evangelicals were calling for Bill Clinton's head when his sexual improprieties were brought to light.  

 

The hypocrisy of the religious right knows no bounds.

[?Impact]

15 hours ago, kimmy said:

I think you forgot "died a virgin"

 

Do we really know what went on between Jesus and his companion Mary Magdalene? According to the Gospel of Philip "And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth."

[Bonam]

 

Quote

 

How Christians reconcile supporting the devil

 

 

It's simple. Those who believe in religion are accustomed to magical thinking. What I mean by that is they are used to accepting ideas without evidence and ignoring the obvious reality in front of them in favor of blindly believing what other people tell them. When someone's critical thinking abilities and rational thought patterns have been short-circuited by a lifelong adherence to supernatural beliefs, it is hardly surprising that their political ideas will not be logically self-consistent. 

 

[The_Squid]

God can use scoundrels like Trump to make America great again.  Hence, God is on Trump's side.  

[JamesHackerMP]

Whoever said "died a virgin v. grabs a pussy" just made me pee myself laughing so hard.

[betsy]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:21 AM, Argus said:

Donald Trump is about as far from being a Christian, about as far from a man who upholds Christian values and virtues as it's possible to find in a western country. I could easily make the case that Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy, was a far better representative of Christian virtues, through his long years of dedicated support for the downtrodden, his campaigning for womens rights and the rights of minorities and those improperly convicted in jails. 

Purely on his own self-admission, and on his own representation, without taking into account what others say, Trump is a hedonist of the first order, a selfish, wretched, covetous adulterer and sinner who has never shown any interest in helping others, but only in satisfying his own lust and narcissistic desire for fame and adulation. By all accounts, and by simple observation, a cruel and intolerant man with a mean streak a mile wide, it seems impossible that anyone who actually believes in Christian ideals would be anything but repulsed by Donald Trump. Yet any number of prominent political Christian leaders have endorsed him.

This despite the fairly obvious fact he has spent as little time in church as possible, has never read the bible, nor understands it (nor cares about it), and has, up until his run for president, taken positions entirely at odds with the social values Christians believe in, including a long history of supporting abortion.

Principled Christians, of course, do not support Trump. Christianity Today, the magazine founded by Billy Graham, in an editorial last week said “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us.”

The editorial criticized the Republican nominee in biblical terms. Quoting a list of sins that St. Paul condemns — “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry” — Crouch wrote, “this is an incredibly apt summary of Trump’s life to date.”

The fact so many self-described Christians continue to endorse Trump seems, to me, to lay bare their hypocrisy, and to raise the question of what kind of commitment their religion has when it can be ignored for perceived political gain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/11/christianity-today-blasts-trump-questions-support-for-someone-who-violates-all-that-is-sacred-to-us/

 

It depends on what angle you see.  How any Christian can support Hillary, is another.

 

Hillary can be said to be all that Christianity Today, says of Trump.  How do we make our judgement?  Tally up who sinned the most?  

Furthermore....to judge one's personal sins isn't Christian-like.....so I don't think it's appropriate to get into judgement of sins.  That's not for man to judge.

 

I support a person for leadership based on their policy, track record, experience and trustworthiness.  I think it's fair to say that most, if not all politicians, lie. 

We've seen what Hillary and Bill had done.  We haven't seen what Trump can do.  I like to see what he does.

  Between the two, I support Trump for the simple reason that more people will benefit from his policy than Hillary's.  Imho.  Just in his pro-life stance alone (even if he just toughens up the abortion law)......think of the numbers of unborn that will be protected.

 

We don't know the will of God.  Who knows, maybe He'll intervene and put in place who He wants to be president.  If we'll bring Christian belief into this, it'll be good to remind ourselves that God sometimes intervene to change the course....or even, to punish a nation.

 

Isaiah 3

Judgment on Jerusalem and Judah

3 See now, the Lord,
    the Lord Almighty,
is about to take from Jerusalem and Judah
    both supply and support:
all supplies of food and all supplies of water,
²     the hero and the warrior,
the judge and the prophet,
    the diviner and the elder,
³ the captain of fifty and the man of rank,
    the counselor, skilled craftsman and clever enchanter.

⁴ “I will make mere youths their officials;
    children will rule over them.”

⁵ People will oppress each other—
    man against man, neighbor against neighbor.
The young will rise up against the old,
    the nobody against the honored.

⁶ A man will seize one of his brothers
    in his father’s house, and say,
“You have a cloak, you be our leader;
    take charge of this heap of ruins!”
⁷ But in that day he will cry out,
    “I have no remedy.
I have no food or clothing in my house;
    do not make me the leader of the people.”

⁸ Jerusalem staggers,
    Judah is falling;
their words and deeds are against the Lord,
    defying his glorious presence.
⁹ The look on their faces testifies against them;
    they parade their sin like Sodom;
    they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
    They have brought disaster upon themselves.

¹⁰ Tell the righteous it will be well with them,
    for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds.
¹¹ Woe to the wicked!
    Disaster is upon them!
They will be paid back
    for what their hands have done.

¹² Youths oppress my people,
    women rule over them.
My people, your guides lead you astray;
    they turn you from the path.

¹³ The Lord takes his place in court;
    he rises to judge the people.
¹⁴ The Lord enters into judgment
    against the elders and leaders of his people:
“It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
    the plunder from the poor is in your houses.
¹⁵ What do you mean by crushing my people
    and grinding the faces of the poor?”
declares the Lord, the Lord Almighty.

¹⁶ The Lord says,
    “The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
    flirting with their eyes,
strutting along with swaying hips,
    with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
¹⁷ Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
    the Lord will make their scalps bald.”

¹⁸ In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, ¹⁹ the earrings and bracelets and veils, ²⁰ the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, ²¹ the signet rings and nose rings, ²² the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses ²³ and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.

²⁴ Instead of fragrance there will be a stench;
    instead of a sash, a rope;
instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;
    instead of fine clothing, sackcloth;
    instead of beauty, branding.
²⁵ Your men will fall by the sword,
    your warriors in battle.
²⁶ The gates of Zion will lament and mourn;
    destitute, she will sit on the ground.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Hillary can be said to be all that Christianity Today, says of Trump.  How do we make our judgement?  Tally up who sinned the most?  

Furthermore....to judge one's personal sins isn't Christian-like.....so I don't think it's appropriate to get into judgement of sins.  That's not for man to judge.

 

  Between the two, I support Trump for the simple reason that more people will benefit from his policy than Hillary's.  Imho.  Just in his pro-life stance alone (even if he just toughens up the abortion law)......think of the numbers of unborn that will be protected

 

If it's a competition of who sinned the most, Trump wins in a landslide.

But elections are meant for you to judge candidates' sins. That's what they're all about. Nobody is perfect, but you are asked to decide who has the best character of the available candidates.

But no unborn will be "protected" by Trump. Even if he throws every woman who seeks an abortion in jail, there would only be a catastrophe of back-alley abortions and FAS/drug addicted unwanted babies. It will create more pain and suffering, all just so that a few self-righteous people can express how they're saving babies while doing nothing to help them.

[betsy]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

If it's a competition of who sinned the most, Trump wins in a landslide.

But elections are meant for you to judge candidates' sins. That's what they're all about. Nobody is perfect, but you are asked to decide who has the best character of the available candidates.

But no unborn will be "protected" by Trump. Even if he throws every woman who seeks an abortion in jail, there would only be a catastrophe of back-alley abortions and FAS/drug addicted unwanted babies. It will create more pain and suffering, all just so that a few self-righteous people can express how they're saving babies while doing nothing to help them.

I'm saying it's not a competition of sins!  It's silly and unreasonable!

How do you determine who sins the most?   How do you know Trump wins by "landslide?"  Do you know everything about Hillary and Trump - what's in their hearts?  Everything they'd done?  All we do is rely on the news and what's written and said about them.  Do you know who's lying, who's embellishing, who's exaggerating, who's taking things out of context, who's telling the truth?  You think media is above lying? 

 

If you think no unborn is going to be protected.....that's how you look at it. 

 

I, on the other hand, looks at it differently.  I say abortion stats will be down.  Sure, there'll be those who'll opt for illegal abortions.....just like there'll be still murderers even when we've got laws against murder.  That's their choice.  But I still think that having a deterrent is best, than none at all.  Women are most likely to make sure they have protected sex, and will think thrice before committing something against the law.  It's a no-brainer.

Edited October 28, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

I, on the other hand, looks at it differently.  I say abortion stats will be down.  Sure, there'll be those who'll opt for illegal abortions.....just like there'll be still murderers even when we've got laws against murder.  That's their choice.  But I still think that having a deterrent is best, than none at all.  Women are most likely to make sure they have protected sex, and will think thrice before committing something against the law.  It's a no-brainer.

You don't worry about the unwanted children and the FAS and the drug addicted babies and the neglect? Forcing people to have children they don't want seems to me to be a lose-lose situation.

Not that Trump would fulfill his promises. He refused to answer the question whether he has been involved in any abortions in the past. Seeing as not catching an STD was "his personal Vietnam," I find it hard to believe he didn't write a few cheques to make a few awkward situations go away. He is clearly only making the promise that he'll get Roe v Wade overturned because it guarantees him 30-40% of the vote. among those single-issue voters.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

 Between the two, I support Trump for the simple reason that more people will benefit from his policy than Hillary's.  Imho.  Just in his pro-life stance alone (even if he just toughens up the abortion law)......think of the numbers of unborn that will be protected.

Trump has never been pro-life. He's making mouth noises, a sales pitch. He has no intention of doing anything about this. And he has no policies which will benefit anyone but the wealthy. I defy you to name one. And your contention that you can support a wicked sinner merely because he makes mouth noises about things is absurd. An arrogant and defiant sinner who defies God and says he has never asked God for forgiveness and has no need to apologize for anything he has ever done, including forswearing his sworn word to God when he married his wives. 

One can only imagine him at the pearly gates cursing at St. Peter for refusing to let him in and threatening a lawsuit, refusing to admit ever having sinned or done anything wrong and demanding entry.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

I'm saying it's not a competition of sins!  It's silly and unreasonable!

Really? I thought a Christian was supposed to act like Jesus. I imagine Jesus coming down to Earth and running into Trump.

"Jesus! Hey! Good to see you, buddy! Listen, I need your support for my presidential candidacy! I'm gonna get rid of health care, cut pensions and unemployment, cut college loans and education grants, cut foreign aid and food stamps and school lunches! That way I can lower taxes on rich people and big corporations! Screw the poor and sick! If they can't feed themselves or pay for a doctor they can go to hell, right, buddy!?"

I have a hard time imagining Jesus shaking his hand and agreeing to vote for him.

[betsy]

18 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

You don't worry about the unwanted children and the FAS and the drug addicted babies and the neglect? Forcing people to have children they don't want seems to me to be a lose-lose situation.

Not that Trump would fulfill his promises. He refused to answer the question whether he has been involved in any abortions in the past. Seeing as not catching an STD was "his personal Vietnam," I find it hard to believe he didn't write a few cheques to make a few awkward situations go away. He is clearly only making the promise that he'll get Roe v Wade overturned because it guarantees him 30-40% of the vote. among those single-issue voters.

Oh cry me the Nile.

No one is forcing them to have children.   They knew of the possibility of pregnancy as a result of having sex.  Any woman with any brain - even if it's only pea-sized -  know that!

Edited October 29, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

Trump has never been pro-life. He's making mouth noises, a sales pitch. He has no intention of doing anything about this. And he has no policies which will benefit anyone but the wealthy. I defy you to name one. And your contention that you can support a wicked sinner merely because he makes mouth noises about things is absurd. An arrogant and defiant sinner who defies God and says he has never asked God for forgiveness and has no need to apologize for anything he has ever done, including forswearing his sworn word to God when he married his wives. 

One can only imagine him at the pearly gates cursing at St. Peter for refusing to let him in and threatening a lawsuit, refusing to admit ever having sinned or done anything wrong and demanding entry.

Hillary had broken her words so many times.  Go ask Susan Sarandon.

Edited October 29, 2016 by betsy