Christian Trump loyalists undermine Christianity's witness to the culture

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, PUB78 said:

No, I would agree with the statement. However, what has Trump done morally wrong since becoming President?  His “sins” seemed to have occurred before he became President as opposed to WJC who had a long history, including when he was President, of chasing women.

"Since becoming president" is a made up standard only employed since Trump took office.  It has never been what the same people using it now employed previously.  And the critics of Clinton being unfit for office started during his first election campaign because of his womanizing and so on.  It didn't just suddenly start once he was President.

 

1 minute ago, PUB78 said:

Trump may be too direct and blunt at times, but he has the country headed in the right direction, despite the Democrats, to correct the disastrous 8 years of the Obama administration.

Like I said, it actually would have been better if the people would have admitted that their concerns were totally about having their guy in power in the first place rather than any faux concern about personal morality.  But as it is, people outside the church see the stark difference in how evangelicals talked in the past when it was a Democrat vs now when it's a Republican, and see hypocrisy.

[Grumps 3,704]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

There's absolutely no reason to imply "capitalism, a strong economy and liberty" constitute a zero sum equation with "fairness, equality and compassion".  Just the opposite in fact.

That's a perverted perspective that is antithetical to Christian values.

 

The point of my post is that I desire MANY things from our government officials. I don't know any other way to select a candidate other than to prioritize the things I desire and see what candidate is more likely to deliver the things that I value the most. I did not mean to imply that it was a "zero sum" equation, but I think you know that.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from lecturing me on Christian values unless you plan to explain your expertise in the area. Just for the record, fairness, equality and compassion are all incredibly subjective, and, therefore, are poor traits to use to pick a candidate in my opinion.

[PUB78 1,358]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

"Since becoming president" is a made up standard only employed since Trump took office.  It has never been what the same people using it now employed previously.  And the critics of Clinton being unfit for office started during his first election campaign because of his womanizing and so on.  It didn't just suddenly start once he was President.

 

Like I said, it actually would have been better if the people would have admitted that their concerns were totally about having their guy in power in the first place rather than any faux concern about personal morality.  But as it is, people outside the church see the stark difference in how evangelicals talked in the past when it was a Democrat vs now when it's a Republican, and see hypocrisy.

I see your points and agree with  some of them too. Unfortunately, in 2016, evangelicals had the choice of two very flawed candidates. One who vowed to “make America great again” and the other who said we had to “change our fundamental beliefs “.

So, which one do you think the vast majority of evangelicals choose??

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

"Since becoming president" is a made up standard only employed since Trump took office.  It has never been what the same people using it now employed previously.

Can you please substantiate this as it applies to @PUB78? Pub was speaking for himself, yes? How do you know this is not the standard he "employed previously?" Pretty cheap to write off such a statement in the manner you did regardless of the speaker. This is another problem with using a broad brush.  

[TitanTiger 20,499]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Can you please substantiate this as it applies to @PUB78? Pub was speaking for himself, yes? How do you know this is not the standard he "employed previously?" Pretty cheap to write off such a statement in the manner you did regardless of the speaker. This is another problem with using a broad brush.  

Because it's a popular new standard being thrown about by numerous evangelical talking heads and organizations.  It didn't originate with PUB.

Let me know when you're reading to stop white knighting everyone else in the thread and engage the discussion for yourself.

[homersapien 11,388]

16 hours ago, Grumps said:

The point of my post is that I desire MANY things from our government officials. I don't know any other way to select a candidate other than to prioritize the things I desire and see what candidate is more likely to deliver the things that I value the most. I did not mean to imply that it was a "zero sum" equation, but I think you know that.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from lecturing me on Christian values unless you plan to explain your expertise in the area. Just for the record, fairness, equality and compassion are all incredibly subjective, and, therefore, are poor traits to use to pick a candidate in my opinion.

You presented it as an 'either or choice'.  That constitutes a zero sum equation whether you realize it or not.

And the choice you made in such a dialectical proposition is antithetical to Christian values, at least the Christian values as I was taught them.

But you confirm my opinion that Trump supporters lack intellectual and/or emotional capacity for fully appreciating qualities such as fairness, equality and compassion.  All of which are Christian values.  Like Trump, they lack empathy.

These are not "poor traits" to apply in the judgement of a candidate's fitness for office.  I don't see how a real Christian would ever suggest such a thing.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/9/2019 at 5:41 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

 

 

(And maybe you should practice what you preach)

I do.  What makes you say otherwise?

In fact, that's exactly why so many people on this forum get ruffled by my posts.  I post what I think and practice what I think.

In the case you present I was calling an argument perverse.  I was not making snarky comments about Grumps intelligence or ability to realize it was perverse.  Nor did I imply he wasn't as smart as me because of his opinion. For all I knew he simply didn't represent his thoughts accurately in writing.  It happens.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok then, forget it. 

I re-read your opinions. Basically, the "flaw" of one evangelical group, purportedly manifested in its support of President Trump, dictates (for whatever reason) the overall perception of Christianity, thereby undermining the witness of all evangelicals and thus negating the witness of each evangelical group to the extent reasonable arrays can be deduced (and for that matter, the individual's witness as well). And apparently, the purported flaw of this group nullifies the credibility of the witness' of even the most pro-liberal, anti-trump, neo-fundamentalist, politically detached, etc. evangelical groups out there.

 

This part is correct.  That's just the way of the world.

This part is a construct of your own and was not reflected in the article.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

18 hours ago, PUB78 said:

No, I would agree with the statement. However, what has Trump done morally wrong since becoming President? His “sins” seemed to have occurred before he became President as opposed to WJC who had a long history, including when he was President, of chasing women. Trump may be too direct and blunt at times, but he has the country headed in the right direction, despite the Democrats, to correct the disastrous 8 years of the Obama administration.

Trump does not have the country going in the right direction, just the opposite.

The only thing disastrous about the Obama administration is that he failed to make meaningful change regarding the oligarchy of the rich and corporations who actually rule the country.

In fact, in many ways, Trump is extending that part of Obama's legacy, only he is actually accentuating it, all while increasing the political, racial and economic divisions in the country, not to mention undermining the rule of law.

All those trends will need to be reversed if we are to survive as a democracy.

[homersapien 11,388]

16 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I see your points and agree with  some of them too. Unfortunately, in 2016, evangelicals had the choice of two very flawed candidates. One who vowed to “make America great again” and the other who said we had to “change our fundamental beliefs “.

So, which one do you think the vast majority of evangelicals choose??

"Change our fundamental beliefs"?

About what?

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You presented it as an 'either or choice'.  That constitutes a zero sum equation whether you realize it or not.

And the choice you made in such a dialectical proposition is antithetical to Christian values, at least the Christian values as I was taught them.

But you confirm my opinion that Trump supporters lack intellectual and/or emotional capacity for fully appreciating qualities such as fairness, equality and compassion.  All of which are Christian values.  Like Trump, they lack empathy.

These are not "poor traits" to apply in the judgement of a candidate's fitness for office.  I don't see how a real Christian would ever suggest such a thing.

 

I think you are pretending not to understand again. ALL candidates say they want fairness, equality and compassion. The problem is that the qualities are subjective. One candidate says, "It is not fair for people to be too poor to pay for healthcare." They are correct. Someone else says, "It is not fair to force people to pay for someone else's healthcare." They are also correct.

As is typical, you would rather attribute my opinion to lack of intellectual or emotional capacity rather than to different priorities. When you are honest we can learn from you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

This part is correct.  That's just the way of the world.

This part is a construct of your own and was not reflected in the article.

 

So the blue portion cannot be deduced from the argument? Do you think the blue portion is incorrect?

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You presented it as an 'either or choice'.  That constitutes a zero sum equation whether you realize it or not.

And the choice you made in such a dialectical proposition is antithetical to Christian values, at least the Christian values as I was taught them.

But you confirm my opinion that Trump supporters lack intellectual and/or emotional capacity for fully appreciating qualities such as fairness, equality and compassion.  All of which are Christian values.  Like Trump, they lack empathy.

These are not "poor traits" to apply in the judgement of a candidate's fitness for office.  I don't see how a real Christian would ever suggest such a thing.

 

What traits do you think are most important in determining a candidate's fitness for office?

[PUB78 1,358]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Change our fundamental beliefs"?

About what?

Our religious beliefs on homosexuality, abortion, transgender and personal responsibility.

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, Grumps said:

I think you are pretending not to understand again. ALL candidates say they want fairness, equality and compassion. The problem is that the qualities are subjective. One candidate says, "It is not fair for people to be too poor to pay for healthcare." They are correct. Someone else says, "It is not fair to force people to pay for someone else's healthcare." They are also correct.

As is typical, you would rather attribute my opinion to lack of intellectual or emotional capacity rather than to different priorities. When you are honest we can learn from you.

I think you are proving my point.

But what are you really saying by "It is not fair for people to be too poor to pay for healthcare"?   It says nothing about the need to help them.  In fact, it could logically infer the response is:  "tough s***, life is unfair".

The second statement is a self-centered way of objecting to the collective action necessary to provide the poor essential healthcare. It reflects a lack of compassion or empathy.

In summary, neither statement reflects prioritizing the value set "fairness, equality, compassion" over the set "capitalism, a strong economy liberty".

While I  believe the first set is far more representative of Christian values than the second set, that's not the crux of my argument. I apologize for any personal offense that observation may have created.  As an agnostic,  I suppose I should leave it to you self-professed "Christians" to argue about who's more genuine in their values.

My main argument is that conservatives  - at least as defined by Trump supporters - seem to lack capacity for fairness, equality and compassion.  Just like their 'Dear Leader' they seem to lack empathy. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

21 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Our religious beliefs on homosexuality, abortion, transgender and personal responsibility.

No one has asked that you change your beliefs.  

You are perfectly free to believe and act on your personal beliefs as long as you don't force them on others who don't share them.

All we have asked is that you not impose your beliefs on people via legislation or persecution.  You are entitled to your personal religious beliefs, you are not entitled to force them on society as a whole.

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, Grumps said:

What traits do you think are most important in determining a candidate's fitness for office?

Intelligence, integrity, respect for the rule of law, progressive policies, compassion, empathy, sense of responsibility, competency, humility, diplomacy

(Just off the top of my head, in no particular order)

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/10/2019 at 4:01 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

So the blue portion cannot be deduced from the argument? Do you think the blue portion is incorrect?

No and possibly, depending on what you mean by "credibility". 

If by "credibility" you mean their image - as formed by outsiders based on who they support - then Yes.  That was the whole point of Titan's original post.

This is not an exercise in logic.  It's about impressions and the propensity of people to make generalizations given strong characterizations by prominent representatives of a defined group, in this case, evangelicals.

[PUB78 1,358]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Intelligence, integrity, respect for the rule of law, progressive policies, compassion, empathy, sense of responsibility, competency, humility, diplomacy

(Just off the top of my head, in no particular order)

In other words, Homer is saying a Republican.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

On 5/9/2019 at 8:01 PM, PUB78 said:

I see your points and agree with  some of them too. Unfortunately, in 2016, evangelicals had the choice of two very flawed candidates. One who vowed to “make America great again” and the other who said we had to “change our fundamental beliefs “.

So, which one do you think the vast majority of evangelicals choose??

This is 100% false.  Evangelicals had the opportunity to back one of 15 Republican candidates in the primary season.  Many still chose Trump during that period.  To argue it was a one or the other proposition is misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

[PUB78 1,358]

28 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is 100% false.  Evangelicals had the opportunity to back one of 15 Republican candidates in the primary season.  Many still chose Trump during that period.  To argue it was a one or the other proposition is misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Not at all, you are wrong. I was for Scott Walker until he dropped out of the race. Most of the evangelicals I know didn’t support Trump until in the general election.

[PUB78 1,358]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No one has asked that you change your beliefs.  

You are perfectly free to believe and act on your personal beliefs as long as you don't force them on others who don't share them.

All we have asked is that you not impose your beliefs on people via legislation or persecution.  You are entitled to your personal religious beliefs, you are not entitled to force them on society as a whole.

I have no problem legislating and standing against evil, murder, perversion and deadbeats.

[homersapien 11,388]

57 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

I have no problem legislating and standing against evil, murder, perversion and deadbeats.

I am sure you don't.

But those are ambiguous and in some cases, loaded terms.

So if you are really talking about legislation based upon your particular religious beliefs instead of generally accepted and secular-based standards of societal behavior, you do not have a constitutional right to legislate such laws. And any of those terms can be used to describe what is unconstitutional legislation

For example, you don't get to declare homosexuality illegal because you consider it "perverse" when such reasoning is based on some ancient manuscript that informs your religious belief.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I think you are proving my point.

But what are you really saying by "It is not fair for people to be too poor to pay for healthcare"?   It says nothing about the need to help them.  In fact, it could logically infer the response is:  "tough s***, life is unfair". 

Life IS unfair. We, as a country, say tough s*** to billions of people every day. We, as a country, have to decide who out of those billions we want to help. I think it is a complicated answer. It is my belief that a capitalistic system offers more equal opportunities for people than does a more government controlled system. A strong economy offers more opportunities for people not to be poor and at least slightly lessens the need for compassion. Liberty is what gives each of us the ability to make our own way, at least to a certain extent.

The second statement is a self-centered way of objecting to the collective action necessary to provide the poor essential healthcare. It reflects a lack of compassion or empathy.

I agree that it reflects a lack of compassion or empathy toward the poor. It also reflects an increased capacity for the tax payers who are adding value to the countries financial resources. Once again, this is complicated. Who should the government show more empathy to? Ultimately, I don't think that the purpose of the government is to be compassionate. Instead, I think the government should put each of its citizens in a position to be more compassionate.

In summary, neither statement reflects prioritizing the value set "fairness, equality, compassion" over the set "capitalism, a strong economy liberty".

I agree with you. My main point with my two statements above that more compassion towards one group means less compassion for another group.

While I  believe the first set is far more representative of Christian values than the second set, that's not the crux of my argument. I apologize for any personal offense that observation may have created.  As an agnostic,  I suppose I should leave it to you self-professed "Christians" to argue about who's more genuine in their values.

I don't think that I said that fairness and compassion were not Christian values. If I did then I was wrong. What I intended to say is that I prioritize other things more than those when deciding which political candidate to vote for. To me, there is a huge difference. From a Christian point of view, there is also a HUGE difference between what I think GOVERNMENTS should do and what INDIVIDUALS should do. I don't want the U.S. to have a Christian government. Regarding who is more genuine in their values, you obviously have every right to argue however you want, but it seems odds to talk about "real Christians" if there is no "real Christ."

My main argument is that conservatives  - at least as defined by Trump supporters - seem to lack capacity for fairness, equality and compassion.  Just like their 'Dear Leader' they seem to lack empathy. 

I don't disagree with you at all on this. I would simply refer back to my above comments to say that it may not be a lack of capacity for fairness, equality, and compassion, it may just be a vastly different priority for who to show compassion to and an understanding that fairness and equality are not achievable. I COMPLETELY respect your right to have different priorities from mine and don't think you lack intellectual capacity for having different priorities from me. I would love to see it work both ways.

I agree that Trump lacks empathy toward almost everyone. 

 

Thank you for explaining.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Not at all, you are wrong. I was for Scott Walker until he dropped out of the race. Most of the evangelicals I know didn’t support Trump until in the general election.

I'm not wrong.  There were 15 choices in the Republican primary and yet he still won a good amount of support from evangelicals and some major evangelical leaders.  Falwell Jr endorsed Trump in January of 2016, right at the beginning of primary season.  Dr. James Dobson also endorsed in January 2016.  The list goes on.

The folks you know and yourself are a infinitely small number compared to the overall trend.  For example, there are African-Americans who vote Republican.  I wouldn't take them as the authority when numbers and greater evidence show otherwise.