Evangelical Support for Trump Eroding?

[*michaelsean*]

(10-11-2018, 11:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: With my luck I'll go through this life shooting zero people and then die and end up face to face with like...Old Testament "nuke 'em all" god, or some Viking god of slaughter, or something.

Then again, he did smack some people around when they were selling crap in His house.  What if the Israelis had invented the Uzi a couple of millenia earlier?

Valhalla sounds like a pretty awesome place. The downside being you could be the greatest warrior ever seen, and get kicked in the head by a horse and die with no sword in your hand and you are SOL. I don't think Odin thought that one through.

[Dill]

(10-10-2018, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure your question addresses what I stated. For all we know, they have the right God. That is why I said it's a personal relationship and my God is one that would want me to use my tools to stop the atrocities I saw. 

How do you feel about it. Should someone try to stop them from such atrocities? 

Theirs is the God of Abraham, before whom they--and you--shall have no other.

But moving from atrocities against schoolgirls in A-stan to nearer practices of patriarchal domination, what do you make of the growing resistance to Trump among Evangelical women?  They would to the last "man" insist that their relation with god is personal, but in practice it appears essentially mediated by husband and pastor. And apparently husbands and pastors have trouble seeing Trump's misogyny, or giving it much account.

Once you grant God chooses imperfect instruments (the reigning theodicy legitimating Trump's authority) to accomplish his will, who's to say one of those instruments can't be a Democrat?  How would Jesus sort out health care in the time of Trump? People leaning Democrat could find some Biblical support for single payer and other "socialist" remedies. How would Jesus sort out the separating of children from parents--and then losing the parents? Would he assume Democrats are only treating brown immigrants humanely to buy votes?

[Dill]

(10-11-2018, 11:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Then again, he did smack some people around when they were selling crap in His house.  What if the Israelis had invented the Uzi a couple of millenia earlier?

Valhalla sounds like a pretty awesome place.  The downside being you could be the greatest warrior ever seen, and get kicked in the head by a horse and die with no sword in your hand and you are SOL.  I don't think Odin thought that one through.

The real downside is you don't get to do it forever.  Goetterdaemmerung.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-11-2018, 11:30 AM)Dill Wrote: The real downside is you don't get to do it forever.  Goetterdaemmerung.

How'd you like to die like a week before Ragnarok?  That would suck.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2018, 11:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Theirs is the God of Abraham, before whom they--and you--shall have no other.

But moving from atrocities against schoolgirls in A-stan to nearer practices of patriarchal domination, what do you make of the growing resistance to Trump among Evangelical women?  They would to the last "man" insist that their relation with god is personal, but in practice it appears essentially mediated by husband and pastor. And apparently husbands and pastors have trouble seeing Trump's misogyny, or giving it much account.

Once you grant God chooses imperfect instruments (the reigning theodicy legitimating Trump's authority) to accomplish his will, who's to say one of those instruments can't be a Democrat?  How would Jesus sort out health care in the time of Trump? People leaning Democrat could find some Biblical support for single payer and other "socialist" remedies. How would Jesus sort out the separating of children from parents--and then losing the parents? Would he assume Democrats are only treating brown immigrants humanely to buy votes?

No one is saying God's instrument cannot be a Democrat. But it is one-sided to point to conservative things that go against what you feel is Christ-like. For instance I'm pretty sure he's not overly tickled about man killing his miracle of creation even before it can be born.

[Benton]

(10-11-2018, 11:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Valhalla sounds like a pretty awesome place.  The downside being you could be the greatest warrior ever seen, and get kicked in the head by a horse and die with no sword in your hand and you are SOL.  I don't think Odin thought that one through.

Or maybe he did.

If you're truly bad ***, you should be able to see the hoof coming and snap the horse's leg.


But I have wondered if old myths would be the same if they knew about cardiovascular degeneration or colon cancer or general diseases. Would they have an asterisk? Like: Odin Sayeth, Only male warriors who have slain 30 foes may enter paradise... unless you get that weird disease where your junk falls off. WTF are you people doing down there!? 

[*Nately120*]

(10-11-2018, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one is saying God's instrument cannot be a Democrat. But it is one-sided to point to conservative things that go against what you feel is Christ-like. For instance I'm pretty sure he's not overly tickled about man killing his miracle of creation even before it can be born.

I could certainly see Jesus not being keen on that, but it's also troubling that so many on the right almost seem to enjoy the concept of the poor suffering.  The notion that we are too good to and spend too much supporting the very people a pro-life doctrine will lead to a boom of is a bit troubling.

There are going to be a lot more miracle babies that people are complaining about "having it too good" and so on.  Again, I'm letting my personal bias get in the way here, but I've heard too many people who legitimately are Christian talk longingly about how great it would be to stop supporting welfare leeches and while we are at it, execute more prisoners, etc.

[Benton]

(10-11-2018, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one is saying God's instrument cannot be a Democrat. But it is one-sided to point to conservative things that go against what you feel is Christ-like. For instance I'm pretty sure he's not overly tickled about man killing his miracle of creation even before it can be born.

That was one thing completely lost on me in the last election. The number of evangelicals throwing their support behind Trump saying, in effect, God is a Republican. 'Yeah, Trump's horrible, but the party put him up... sooooo... I guess God'll use him.' God couldn't use a Democrat? 'Uhhh... MAGA!'

Personally, I don't think the GOP is all that different about not following His word. They leverage abortion as a platform issue, but rarely use the authority they have to do anything more about it than talk about how they need to get reelected to do something. Latching onto that has taken evangelicals down a dark path of not supporting laws reflecting His word.

[Dill]

(10-11-2018, 11:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How'd you like to die like a week before Ragnarok?  That would suck.  

LOL or even the night before. You are issued your drinking horn and before you've even finished--boom, gone.

[Dill]

(10-11-2018, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one is saying God's instrument cannot be a Democrat. But it is one-sided to point to conservative things that go against what you feel is Christ-like. For instance I'm pretty sure he's not overly tickled about man killing his miracle of creation even before it can be born.

I dunno. If life starts at "conception," and spontaneous natural abortions are common enough at that stage, then I doubt he/she is as bothered about that "miracle" as our Republican friends.  What was Jesus' view on abortion anyway?  Even Evangelicals did not heat up over abortion until the 1950s or so. It was mostly a Catholic issue before that.

Are you sure no one is saying God's instrument cannot be a Democrat?  Have people ever argued that voting for a Clinton was against Biblical principles?  

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2018, 12:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I could certainly see Jesus not being keen on that, but it's also troubling that so many on the right almost seem to enjoy the concept of the poor suffering.  The notion that we are too good to and spend too much supporting the very people a pro-life doctrine will lead to a boom of is a bit troubling.

There are going to be a lot more miracle babies that people are complaining about "having it too good" and so on.  Again, I'm letting my personal bias get in the way here, but I've heard too many people who legitimately are Christian talk longingly about how great it would be to stop supporting welfare leeches and while we are at it, execute more prisoners, etc.

Many Christian feel charity should be from the heart, not from the government.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2018, 04:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I dunno. If life starts at "conception," and spontaneous natural abortions are common enough at that stage, then I doubt he/she is as bothered about that "miracle" as our Republican friends.  What was Jesus' view on abortion anyway?  Even Evangelicals did not heat up over abortion until the 1950s or so. It was mostly a Catholic issue before that.

Are you sure no one is saying God's instrument cannot be a Democrat?  Have people ever argued that voting for a Clinton was against Biblical principles?  

As to the first I'm pretty sure he frowned upon killing the innocent regardless the stage of life,

To the latter. Jimmy Carter was probably the most pious POTUS we've had in recent times. if anyone said voting for Clinton was against biblical principles and voted for Trump; then they are a hypocrite.

I know the only time I'll bring up Clinton's transgressions is when folks state you shouldn't have voted for trump because he's not a saint.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2018, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the first I'm pretty sure he frowned upon killing the innocent regardless the stage of life,

This goes back to my original conundrum.

(10-11-2018, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know the only time I'll bring up Clinton's transgressions is when folks state you shouldn't have voted for trump because he's not a saint.

Understatement of the year.

Clinton had affairs and lied about them (including under oath). He should have stepped down just for that.

He was also accused of worse sexual charges.

Those two things are just the tip of the iceberg for Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2018, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: This goes back to my original conundrum.



Understatement of the year.

Clinton had affairs and lied about them (including under oath).  He should have stepped down just for that.

He was also accused of worse sexual charges.

Those two things are just the tip of the iceberg for Trump.  

You may have your Clinton's mixed up. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-11-2018, 12:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Or maybe he did.

If you're truly bad ***, you should be able to see the hoof coming and snap the horse's leg.


But I have wondered if old myths would be the same if they knew about cardiovascular degeneration or colon cancer or general diseases. Would they have an asterisk? Like: Odin Sayeth, Only male warriors who have slain 30 foes may enter paradise... unless you get that weird disease where your junk falls off. WTF are you people doing down there!? 

Which is why both Conan and Mongo take 0 shit from horses....

(10-11-2018, 12:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I could certainly see Jesus not being keen on that, but it's also troubling that so many on the right almost seem to enjoy the concept of the poor suffering.  The notion that we are too good to and spend too much supporting the very people a pro-life doctrine will lead to a boom of is a bit troubling.

There are going to be a lot more miracle babies that people are complaining about "having it too good" and so on.  Again, I'm letting my personal bias get in the way here, but I've heard too many people who legitimately are Christian talk longingly about how great it would be to stop supporting welfare leeches and while we are at it, execute more prisoners, etc.

It seems like you're mixing together the religious Right (the folks who are pro-life) and the free market/small government Right (the folks who say support yourself). They aren't nessicarily the same folk, but because of our idiotic 2-party system, you have a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't even be in the same group together because it's realistically only either one or the other party.

I mean heck, even with just the religious Right, depending on the type of church you attend/doctrine you follow, there's some hellfire and brimstone for all sinners folks out there and there's welcoming of homosexuality, we should all help each other folks out there. They both end up just lumped together as the religious Right though despite being VERY different.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2018, 05:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You may have your Clinton's mixed up. 

Larger understatement then.

Hillary Clinton has been accused of, and investigated for, much less than Trump.

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2018, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  For instance I'm pretty sure he's not overly tickled about man killing his miracle of creation even before it can be born.

Well you have always been pretty good at putting words in people mouths that they never said.

So what exactly did Jesus say about abortion?

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2018, 05:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well you have always been pretty good at putting words in people mouths that they never said.

So what exactly did Jesus say about abortion?

Well there's a lot of knowing folks while they were still in the womb and there's a passage about how a man should lose his life if he causes a pregnant woman to miscarry (It's the whole life for a life piece).

But the one that sticks with me the most is: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin"

[Dill]

(10-11-2018, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the first I'm pretty sure he frowned upon killing the innocent regardless the stage of life,

To the latter. Jimmy Carter was probably the most pious POTUS we've had in recent times. if anyone said voting for Clinton was against biblical principles and voted for Trump; then they are a hypocrite.

I know the only time I'll bring up Clinton's transgressions is when folks state you shouldn't have voted for trump because he's not a saint.

Ha ha "not a saint." When you leap to the most general standards then suddenly everyone is the same, equally good or bad. Trump no worse than Clinton. Either Clinton.  And maybe no worse than you or me.

But when people complain about Trump they are not upset because he is "not a saint." They are upset because he mocked a sexual assault victim or lied about his taxes or fired someone for doing the right thing or appointed someone to the Supreme Court likely to rule favorably on investigations pending against him--as opposed to thinking of what is best for the country.

And you have touched on the problem for Evangelicals. LOL Character Counts! --or does when Democrats run.

Trump-Loving Christians Owe Bill Clinton an Apology
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/evangelical-christians-trump-bill-clinton-apology/495224/
n response to what they perceived as widespread moral decline, some religious groups had become aligned with the Republican Party during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. To them, the allegedly draft-dodging, pot-smoking, honesty-challenged womanizer symbolized everything that was wrong with America.
More than two decades after Clinton’s first inauguration, many evangelical leaders of that era have endorsed the draft-dodging, foul-mouthed, honesty-challenged womanizer named Donald Trump for president.

‘You get a do-over here’: Evangelical leaders’ apparent double-standard on the alleged Trump-Daniels affair
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Evangelicals slammed Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. So why does Trump get a pass?
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article107819532.html

All this brings us back to theology:

The Little-Known Theology Behind White Evangelical Support of Donald Trump
https://www.texasobserver.org/the-little-known-theology-behind-white-evangelical-support-of-donald-trump/

As news of Donald Trump’s alleged affair with a porn star heated up the airwaves this month, Robert Jeffress, a Dallas megachurch pastor and Trump religious adviser, assured Fox News viewers that the affair is “totally irrelevant” to his fellow evangelicals. In fact, Jeffress said this week that Trump “is the most faith-friendly president we’ve ever had.”

That’s more than a little surprising, considering how conservative Christian leaders castigated Bill Clinton for his sexual misdeeds back in the 1990s. And Jeffress himself, an outspoken supporter of the idea that America is a Christian nation, argued in his 2016 Twilight’s Last Gleaming that Christian leaders are preferable to non-Christians because their “core beliefs” work to restrain them from “immorality” and “corruption.”

But that was before Trump’s surprise electoral victory. Since then, Jeffress’ message seems to have changed. He’s said that a president shouldn’t embody Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. And he recently praised an article that declares it’s “out of place” to try “to force Gospel principles on the state.”

LOL sorry to keep steering discussion back to he Evangelical vote.

[Dill]

(10-11-2018, 05:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It seems like you're mixing together the religious Right (the folks who are pro-life) and the free market/small government Right (the folks who say support yourself). They aren't nessicarily the same folk, but because of our idiotic 2-party system, you have a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't even be in the same group together because it's realistically only either one or the other party.

I mean heck, even with just the religious Right, depending on the type of church you attend/doctrine you follow, there's some hellfire and brimstone for all sinners folks out there and there's welcoming of homosexuality, we should all help each other folks out there. They both end up just lumped together as the religious Right though despite being VERY different.

Actually, a lot of the pro lifers are free marketeers.  Plenty of free marketeers might support a woman's right to choose if it helped the bottom line, but I wonder, in fact, how many pro lifers (if any) are not free marketeers .  The religious right follows the free marketeers because the latter promise pro-life support to get their votes.