doesn’t the Bible specifically warn about people like Trump?
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
Yes, but it doesn’t matter, these people don’t read the Bible.
They do read the Bible though, at least in my experience. I’ve gone to a number of different churches, Evangelical and otherwise, and the Evangelical or otherwise Calvinist folks were the ones that read the Bible the most and in the most detail — but perhaps also the ones who came to horrible conclusions the most often. Like that you should shine the light of Christ into the world by blocking women for promotion at your job, because 1 Tim 2:12 says that Paul does not permit them to have authority over men. (Real example, if possibly the worst one I’ve seen.) Maybe my experience is not representative, but I don’t think the problem is primarily that Evangelicals don’t read the Bible.
I have a long theory about some of the ways that Evangelicalism distorts Scripture, but one root of the issue is that (IMHO) Scripture was written by humans, reflects the biases of the authors and their societies, and has a lot of horrible things in it. If you take a sola scriptura view and then read it through a lens that’s been cultivated over years to reinforce patriarchy and supremacy (see e.g. Manifest Destiny, the curse of Ham, etc) then you will end up absorbing the genocidal and supremacist bits and not the hospitable and altruistic bits.
For them, it’s just an excuse to do whatever it is they’re doing.
For sure. People don’t want to repent. They want to find justifications for what they were already doing, or planning to do.
If you take a sola scriptura view and then read it through a lens that’s been cultivated over years to reinforce patriarchy and supremacy (see e.g. Manifest Destiny, the curse of Ham, etc) then you will end up absorbing the genocidal and supremacist bits and not the hospitable and altruistic bits.
Agreed, over the years I’ve come to firmly believe the root cause of all the Christian extremism we have nowadays is the literal interpretation of the scripture by Evangelicals. When you take every word of that book as law and you refuse to acknowledge some of it shouldn’t be relevant anymore, you end with some really absurd worldviews and beliefs. Especially in those small churches without affiliation to some larger religious body, without some authority dictating what is acceptable and what isn’t, the insanity runs amok.
This is something I admire in the Catholic church, their willingness to reinterpret the Bible to current circumstances, they get a lot of flak (deservedly so) for some things, but at least they have that going for them.
In the case of the creator of the video, they literally don’t.
The group’s leader, Brenden Dilley, characterizes himself as Christian and a man of faith but says he has never read the Bible and does not attend church.
Source, which then links to a video also on the NYTimes.
“There’s a portion of the evangelical community that’s very attracted to the idea that God knows everything and God appoints leaders,” he said. “They believe that Donald Trump is the appointed leader at this moment in time.”
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
– Romans 13:1 NIV
Except, of course, if the current leader is a Democrat.
Their theology is as bad as their choice of political candidate. I cannot think of any other politician that embodies the "Seven Deadly Sins" in public/private life moreso than Mr. Trump. I honestly do not get how the same "conservatives" used to crow about character being of the highest importance for an officeholder/candidate during the 90s, can get on this godawful bandwagon. I still am a Christian and live my life rather "conservatively", but if this is what Christianity and Conservatism has become, it is no wonder the next generation is saying "Count me out...".
“Would you rather have someone whose tongue is maybe a little wild, but has incredibly good policies that make your life better?” he asked the congregation. “Or someone who has a silver tongue and says all the right things and has terrible policies which ruin your life and those of your children and grandchildren?”
Partly out of confirmation bias as I’ve been saying this since before his victory in 2016 and highlighting it as the thing lefty/intellectual/“elites” don’t get about his appeal. Trump hits the “right” buttons while his wildness, lack of “refinement” and apparent sense-making are all features. So many want “change” … Trump is “change”, right from his personal nature and demeanour.
Another …
And he said that the decline in church attendance over time had meant that many of those who considered themselves religious were less influenced by spiritual leaders and more by right-wing media and politicians - Mr Trump foremost among them.
Oh … JFC!! I suppose this is a good predictor of how the west collapses. Deepening class separation across all spheres of civil life allowing chaotic manipulation by demagogues. Can’t help but think of the fall of the Roman Republic and Dune here. Also can’t help but think that the whole Hitchens/Dawkins anti-religion thing, which feels like it got a bit old for the mainstream, really has an essentially important fundamental point … as a whole type of institution and cultural phenomenon, it may simply not be worth it on the whole.
So many want “change” … Trump is “change”, right from his personal nature and demeanour.
Back in 2016 when Trump as sill “new” I fell very squarely into this. I was still too young to vote and had just started learning about politics. Looking at both major parties all I saw was people who didn’t care about normal people, politicians that seemed too involved in the political game to actually get anything done. I remember seeing Trump as a kinda of wild card that would hopefully stir things up enough to hopefully get something done. That someone removed from the traditional nepotism in politics could make real changes.
Unfortunately that’s not what happened, and not really how any of this works. It seems like his presidency just made new problems, and all the old ones still persist.
On the new and old problems front, in-line with the article … I wonder how many don’t see it that way. Getting the Supreme Court to take down abortion for instance seems like a big one for some conservatives , like maybe “best president in our life time” big. Not just because of the decision itself, but also knowing that the Court is now on “their side”.
Informally many people do speak in half sentences, zig zagging on tangents, especially schizophrenics. It takes a lot of energy to follow if you are not used to it and Republicans think we are the stupid ones for not being able to follow.
Try to follow his much derided nuclear uncle speech. It isn’t that hard when you give it a go.
Yea. And in a way, Trumps greatest political achievement may be that he proved or materialised the “elitism” facade around US Democracy and Government. While previously, to many, especially urban and higher/“educated” class types, it might have just been a Fox News culture war wedge, with Trump and how “no one” saw him coming or understood his appeal, the whole elitist facade and the safe bubble many had taken for granted was revealed.
To be fair, Bernie Sanders did see his appeal. He came from the same down-to-earth angle (even more so, not being a billionaire) and addressed many of the same issues except offering a genuine solution rather than a scam.
The Democratic party did not like that because they are part of the elite, playing good cop to GOP’s bad cop. USA is screwed until it eliminates its backward two-party system.
Oh for sure, and this was known at the time IIRC, when some polling it something revealed that “Bernie bros will vote for trump”. And, IIRC, the mainstream media response was that it made little sense.
The best description I’ve heard, is: “finally a politician who speaks his mind!”
What people don’t realize, is that Trump doesn’t really “speak his mind”, like a schizophrenic would. His longer rambling tirades are actually rehearsed, while the shorter ones he’s been practicing for decades since becoming a professional con man, to the point where they’ve become second nature.
It’s all a smoke screen, very effective at fooling those less experienced. He’s particularly talented at saying something, and the opposite, plus a tangent. Which is something an actual schizophrenic would never do, but a con man can use to first get people to only hear whatever each one prefers, then over time cherry pick those same words and spin them into any narrative that’s best for themselves.
Or in other words, but the same, don’t you love words:
The best and worst description I’ve heard, because hearing is important, is: finally, at the beginning of it all, when someone changes things, a politician like you and me, running the country like a business, who speaks his mind then shuts up, because respect is important, I respect that!
He started quite eloquent and on point, then went on adding trick upon trick. I don’t think he’s gone out of character for a long time, as demonstrated by the infamous “grab them by the p🙊” private-ish conversation.
As a better test of his abilities, I propose you pick any of his speeches and see how many rhetorical devices you can spot:
Was there, perhaps, a way you could have given this message without the snark? It might make people listen to what you’re clearly passionate about. If not then they’ll continue to do what’s easiest for them and share a link: amp or not.
I wouldn’t quite say it was snarky, there was no malicious or hostile intent. It gets tiresome excessively sugar coating the message, and while I understand how you could take it the wrong way the statement was actually very neutral. At least this way I highlighted how easy it is to remove the /amp - literally: ctrl+v, backspace x4.
I’m not overly passionate about it, I just point it out, and then get on with my life. You being stubborn about it has nothing to do with me though lol.
Edit: Lmao and you’re downvoting me because I gently told you off. That’s kind of pathetic.
As discussed in the article, of was never really about religion. It was about rhetoric. The bar for Democrats to keep states like Iowa blue was so incredibly low, requiring only action. But none could be taken, and it will now be incredibly difficult to overcome this loss.
The bar for Democrats to keep states like Iowa blue was so incredibly low, requiring only action.
What would Democrats have had to do? Is there any chance that any sort of Evangelical appeal from a Democratic candidate wouldn’t be appealing to the rest of the democratic voters?
It goes back, I don't know, 30 years? With both agricultural US and union areas (sometimes the same places) the Democratic party consistently expected those votes without actually delivering anything. Bill Clinton and the party get blamed for things like NAFTA and jobs moving to other countries, etc. So eventually these folks drift to the Republican party. Many of these people were broadly conservative anyways. Later, the religious aspects and toxicity of what started with Newt manifested to what we see now.
I don't know if an evangelical Democrat would fly now. It's a really bad situation with very entrenched beliefs.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summaryIn 2016, Mr Trump picked up just 22% of this group on the way to a second-place finish behind Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who like previous Iowa Republican winners made faith a major part of his campaign. But since that time, when many were still sceptical of the blunt-talking New York businessman trailed by sex scandals, Mr Trump has made born-again Christians a key part of his voter base. Self-described conservative evangelical David Pautsch is a huge fan of Mr Trump, and the former president is part of the reason he’s decided to run for Congress in Iowa’s 1st district, challenging a Republican incumbent from the right. Mr Pautsch lives here in Davenport, a city of around 100,000 people in eastern Iowa, and was collecting signatures to back his campaign from hundreds of locals who braved frigid weather to visit a gun show at an exhibition centre. Kedron Bardwell, a political science professor at Simpson College in Indianola, just outside Des Moines, said that Mr Trump had a key advantage over his rivals - a track record that aligned with evangelical priorities. His appointment of three conservative justices to the Supreme Court - and the overturning of Roe v Wade, which for decades had held that there is a constitutional right to abortion - is a key part of that record, as is his decision to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. — Saved 82% of original text.
One of the most controversial Islamist groups in the UK, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is to be banned as a terrorist organisation, accused of praising the Hamas attacks.
The word ordinarily means an inner struggle for justice, under traditional Islamic theology, but is also regularly used as a call for holy war by terrorist groups.
Announcing the banning order, Mr Cleverly said: "Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks.
Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 as an international political movement calling for a single Islamic government across the Muslim world.
The government says that since the 7 October attacks, Hizb ut-Tahrir has described Hamas fighters as “heroes” on its central website - and such praise amounts to promoting and encouraging terrorism.
Other countries that have banned the group include Germany, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan and central Asian and Arab nations.
The original article contains 498 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Nobody is actually investigating whether these are caused by ghosts. They’re dirty marks on a wall behind a bench where people lean; it’s not a mystery. No more a mystery than discarded chewing gum on a pavement potentially being dropped by ghosts with minty fresh breath.
This is absolutely gross and dangerous behaviour if this is what it sounds like: calling protests against genocide and Zionism as somehow “antisemitic”.
There are real antisemites to be fought against: actual Nazis, MAGA assholes, Casa Pound, Proud Boys, etc.
Anti-Zionists are not antisemites.
The same anti-fascists who are fighting against all these true antisemites are also the same people who are fighting against the genocidal ideology of Zionism.
Zionism is just another fascist ideology. It depends on apartheid, settler colonialism, and ethnic cleansing in order to build an ethnostate.
It’s absolutely disgusting of Zionists to pull out the “antisemitism” card when Israel and Zionism are being called out. They’re intentionally trying to muddy the water and it puts innocent people in danger.
bbc.co.uk
Newest