Christian Trump loyalists undermine Christianity's witness to the culture

[PUB78 1,358]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

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.

When Trump choose Pence as his V/P, that sealed the deal for most evangelicals.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

20 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

When Trump choose Pence as his V/P, that sealed the deal for most evangelicals.

Great.  That happened LONG after the primaries.  I'm talking about the choices evangelicals had during the primary season here and trying to understand why many, including big name evangelical leaders, still chose Trump over other Republicans.  I get the argument of backing him vs Hillary.  But evangelicals that were behind Trump from the beginning have no moral ground to stand on.

[PUB78 1,358]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Great.  That happened LONG after the primaries.  I'm talking about the choices evangelicals had during the primary season here and trying to understand why many, including big name evangelical leaders, still chose Trump over other Republicans.  I get the argument of backing him vs Hillary.  But evangelicals that were behind Trump from the beginning have no moral ground to stand on.

I can’t speak for Graham and Falwell, the Christians I associate with were supporting different candidates until the end of the Republican primaries. When it was evident that Trump was the winner, selected Pence as his running mate , against HRC, it was a clear choice.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I can’t speak for Graham and Falwell, the Christians I associate with were supporting different candidates until the end of the Republican primaries. When it was evident that Trump was the winner, selected Pence as his running mate , against HRC, it was a clear choice.

I think this is the point you're missing.  To those of us who have been preached to about morality by evangelicals for years and it's importance in a candidate, it became very hypocritical to see some prominent evangelical leaders and many of their followers openly supporting Trump at the beginning of the primary season.  

With this framework, the choice of Trump vs Clinton isn't one that most of us question because they both have some seedy histories, plus people tend to vote for their preferred party's nominee no matter what.  It's the choice made of Trump vs the other Republican options during the primary season that remains baffling, considering Trump's seemingly antithetical approach to evangelical values based on his actions.  In doing so, those evangelicals and the leaders who supported Trump early abandoned all moral high ground and severely discredited their witness among those of us who don't necessarily believe.

[PUB78 1,358]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I think this is the point you're missing.  To those of us who have been preached to about morality by evangelicals for years and it's importance in a candidate, it became very hypocritical to see some prominent evangelical leaders and many of their followers openly supporting Trump at the beginning of the primary season.  

With this framework, the choice of Trump vs Clinton isn't one that most of us question because they both have some seedy histories, plus people tend to vote for their preferred party's nominee no matter what.  It's the choice made of Trump vs the other Republican options during the primary season that remains baffling, considering Trump's seemingly antithetical approach to evangelical values based on his actions.  In doing so, those evangelicals and the leaders who supported Trump early abandoned all moral high ground and severely discredited their witness among those of us who don't necessarily believe.

That is why you should follow God instead of man.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 hours ago, PUB78 said:

That is why you should follow God instead of man.

This is a cop out. 

[PUB78 1,358]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a cop out. 

Baloney.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

53 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Baloney.

It is. You’re avoiding the fact that we have a responsibility to be a good witness to the culture at large by copping out to something you can’t expect someone who doesn’t know God yet to do. 

[PUB78 1,358]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

It is. You’re avoiding the fact that we have a responsibility to be a good witness to the culture at large by copping out to something you can’t expect someone who doesn’t know God yet to do. 

You lost me on that long confusing last sentence. Dumb it down for me.

[Grumps 3,704]

3 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

You lost me on that long confusing last sentence. Dumb it down for me.

I think he is saying that Christians who thought that Trump was a more ethical or Christian candidate than Jeb Bush. Ben Carson. Chris Christie. Ted Cruz. Carly Fiorina. Jim Gilmore. Lindsey Graham. Mike Huckabee. Bobby Jindal. John Kasich. George Pataki. Rand Paul. Rick Perry. Marco Rubio. Rick Santorum or Scott Walker were blind or were hypocrites.

I pretty much agree with that. I sure didn't vote for Trump in the primary and almost didn't in the general election.

[PUB78 1,358]

Thanks Grumps!  I forgot about Cruz, liked him too. Can’t argue with your comments, many other good conservative candidates to choose from, but in the end, it was Trump along with Pence against HRC and her lap dog, Kane.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

9 hours ago, PUB78 said:

You lost me on that long confusing last sentence. Dumb it down for me.

We have a responsibility to be a witness to the culture and defending/ignoring/minimizing Trump’s behavior undermines that witness because it reeks of hypocrisy. 

You tell someone to follow God instead of man, but you can’t expect someone who isn’t yet a believer to understand that. The initial understanding of who God is and what He’s like comes from watching His people. 

[PUB78 1,358]

I was referring to evangelicals when I made that statement.

[homersapien 11,388]

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.

Well regarding healthcare, let start by ensuring all Americans are eligible for basic services regardless of their ability to pay.  Other countries do it and provide more economical healthcare than ours with better outcomes.

Regarding the world, it is ultimately in our own interests to try to improve healthcare and elevate standards of living.  Not to say we are directly responsible for it, but as a global empire, we need to promote policies that promote the wellfare of people.

And I agree that "life is not fair".  For example, - and not to hijack the discussion - one can certainly argue that it's not "fair" for a fetus if the woman chooses to abort it.  But if one prioritizes the right of the woman to make her own choice as an individual then, "tough s***" for the fetus. 

But once born, there's no conflict regarding the woman's individual right.  As a new member of society, we should ensure that baby with access to essential healthcare regardless of it's ability to pay. Likewise we should have educational and nutritional policies to ensure that new baby has a chance as an individual to become a productive member of society.  (And needless to say, we should certainly ensure the woman has access to affordable birth control to avoid the conflict in the first place.)

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.

I agree wholeheartedly.  But there are critical areas of the public good that capitalism simply cannot address, such as protecting the environment and apparently, health care.

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.

Agree. No argument with any of that.

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.

That sounds very nice, but there are needs or requirements that must be or are more efficiently addressed by government.  Things that capitalism simply doesn't address.

To answer your question directly, the government should show empathy to people who are stuck into a cycle of poverty by promoting policies in areas such as healthcare and education to ensure all Americans have the opportunity to "help themselves".  Those are investments, not merely handouts.  And they ultimately benefit everyone.

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

I disagree. First, compassion is not a zero sum equation.  Secondly, the perspective should be on the collective or common good for our society which consists of all of us.  Helping those who desperately need help to become productive members of our society helps us all as members of that society. 

This attitude that helping other people simply costs me is one of the typical conservative attitudes I find to be problematic (as well as un Christian).  It boils down to what sort of society do you want to live in? 

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.

Prioritizing individual action is a worthy ideal, but again, there are certain things that individuals simply cannot do.  Some of our problems are societal and must be addressed as a society.  For one of us to help another individual is great, but it's no prescription for solving systemic problems, such as healthcare.

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."

I believe Jesus existed, I just don't believe he was the son of God and I will be "saved" if only I believed that.  But I can certainly accept and honor the humanitarian values taught by Jesus, which I have always assumed formed the core of Christian ethics.  To me, a real Christian holds that code of ethics just as dear - and necessary - as the idea of personal salvation.  Obviously, many evangelical Christians do not feel that way, as evidenced by their support of Trump. 

It is not inappropriate for our society as a whole to strive for humanitarian values expressed in policy.  That's not the same as having a religious government. They are not unique to any particular religion.

......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.....

The weakness in this argument is that it ignores the fact that we don't just exist as individuals, we also exist as a society.  I am all for individual empowerment and initiative. But as I have said, there are problems or issues that must be addressed in a collective way as a society that cannot be effectively addresses as individuals. 

This becomes more true as society evolves in technology and size.

It's great to strive for "a thousand points of light", but whatever benefits that philosophy accrues, it's not going to effectively address systemic issues such as protecting our environment, healthcare and national defense.

I agree that Trump lacks empathy toward almost everyone. 

Which takes us back to the OP. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I was referring to evangelicals when I made that statement.

I'm confused then.  Brad was talking about evangelicals proclaiming one thing about morality then contradicting that with their vocal support for someone who violates that morality in almost every conceivable way, then you tell him "That's why you should follow God instead of man."  Sounds like you're talking to Brad and telling him he should be trusting God instead of the evangelicals who profess to be following Him.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 5/11/2019 at 2:02 PM, homersapien said:

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

If by "credibility" you mean their image (as seen by outsiders) of what they support politically - i.e.: the assumptions people will likely make of them  - then Yes.

That was the point of Titan's 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.

Thank you for addressing my posts. Cheers.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/11/2019 at 3:14 PM, PUB78 said:

In other words, Homer is saying a Republican.

I wish.

We'd be better off as a country if it were true. 

Actually, Republicans are more of the actual problem than Trump is.  Trump is just a symptom of the "Republican problem".

That's exactly why Biden has gotten blow back from Democrats for saying Trump is an aberration.  The real problem is Republicans, not so much Trump.  They care more about their personal political objectives than they do for the country.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153715/joe-biden-says-trump-aberration-hes-wrong

Republicans have excised the moderates from their ranks (like my ex-representative, Bob Inglis).  All they have left are right wing extremists and a couple of spineless pseudo moderates who care more about their political goals than they do for the country.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 5/9/2019 at 5:49 AM, TitanTiger said:

 And thus it is made that much harder for the message of Christ to be heard and received by those who need it.

Not going to argue that the "predominant evangelical leaders" are hypocrites. Most always have been but JMO. People cast their hypocritical Trump vote for a number of reasons. Some feeling better about his SCJ nominations. Many due to the total disgust with Washington. 

From my understanding the message of Christ has always been difficult to spread. It is also my understanding that it is not up to the messenger to ensure that it is received. That is up to God. Assuming you mean received in the sense I read. 

Great topic and intrigued reading it. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The initial understanding of who God is and what He’s like comes from watching His people. 

Hmm, I respectfully disagree. I would say that it all begins with looking in the mirror and realizing your own helpless state. I am confident St. Paul understood this too when he described himself as the "worst" of all sinners. 

I think I understand your larger point, just worded differently. 

[PUB78 1,358]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm confused then.  Brad was talking about evangelicals proclaiming one thing about morality then contradicting that with their vocal support for someone who violates that morality in almost every conceivable way, then you tell him "That's why you should follow God instead of man."  Sounds like you're talking to Brad and telling him he should be trusting God instead of the evangelicals who profess to be following Him.  

Bingo! You got it right.

[PUB78 1,358]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

I wish.

We'd be better off as a country if it were true. 

Actually, Republicans are more of the actual problem than Trump is.  Trump is just a symptom of the "Republican problem".

That's exactly why Biden has gotten blow back from Democrats for saying Trump is an aberration.  The real problem is Republicans, not so much Trump.  They care more about their personal political objectives than they do for the country.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153715/joe-biden-says-trump-aberration-hes-wrong

Republicans have excised the moderates from their ranks (like my ex-representative, Bob Inglis).  All they have left are right wing extremists and a couple of spineless pseudo moderates who care more about their political goals than they do for the country.

 

Just like the Left, no moderates or even sane people left.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

10 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Bingo! You got it right.

Then my original objection stands. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Hmm, I respectfully disagree. I would say that it all begins with looking in the mirror and realizing your own helpless state. I am confident St. Paul understood this too when he described himself as the "worst" of all sinners. 

I think I understand your larger point, just worded differently. 

That’s the beginning of realizing a need for Him. But it’s not the initial impression. The norm is, someone who doesn’t know God from a hatbox will form initial impressions about Him based on those who claim to know and follow Him. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Not going to argue that the "predominant evangelical leaders" are hypocrites. Most always have been but JMO. People cast their hypocritical Trump vote for a number of reasons. Some feeling better about his SCJ nominations. Many due to the total disgust with Washington. 

From my understanding the message of Christ has always been difficult to spread. It is also my understanding that it is not up to the messenger to ensure that it is received. That is up to God. Assuming you mean received in the sense I read. 

Great topic and intrigued reading it. 

 

I think some of you are confusing a couple of things. Voting for Trump is not the same thing as defending/rationalizing/ignoring his immoral actions. For instance, one could have voted for him but be put off by how he’s conducted himself as president (perhaps they thought once he was in office he would respect the position he’s and be more presidential for instance.)  Or maybe they voted for him entirely over SCOTUS judges but have serious problems with many of his other actions. Maybe they voted for him and now simply regret it.

Those sorts of things (not an exhaustive list) are not tantamount to being his cheerleader the way some are (such and Graham and Falwell), and doesn’t involve making excuses for behavior they once argued was morally disqualifying for a President. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

53 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That’s the beginning of realizing a need for Him. But it’s not the initial impression. The norm is, someone who doesn’t know God from a hatbox will form initial impressions about Him based on those who claim to know and follow Him. 

Yeah we disagree on that point.