Benjamin L. Corey

Benjamin L. Corey

BLC is an author, speaker, scholar, and global traveler, who holds graduate degrees in Theology & Intercultural Studies from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and received his doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller. He is the author of Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus, and Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith.

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity Instead of CHRISTianity

Are you following Jesus, or following Trump? Here's an easy way to tell:

In the Era of Trump’s America, I must admit that I hardly recognize the very people who raised me. I was brought up by the Religious Right, and went on to become a faithful foot soldier for the cause of conservative Christianity and right-wing politics until my mid 30’s. However, long gone is their commitment to the values they tried to instill in me, and so much else that once consistently encompassed their collective identity.

Sadly, my old tribe seems to collectively struggle to realize they’ve done exactly what they spent the entire Left Behind series warning me not to do: they have fallen in line behind a worldly leader who arose to power during a time of “wars and rumors of wars,” who did so by falsely pretending to be a Christian, but who would ultimately lead them to follow an entirely new religion.

To help my former right-wing family out, here’s the top 10 signs you’re now following TRUMPianity instead of CHRISTianity:

 

10. You spent 8 years criticizing every move of Obama, but the minute Trump was sworn in you started telling everyone that “Christians should respect the president” and that being “divisive” is a sin.

 

Remember the you of two years ago? That’s okay, because I do– and you certainly didn’t seem to believe that Christians should “respect the president” or that being politically divisive was any sort of sin.

Here I am recalling you taught me that, “sin is always sin” and doesn’t change just because culture changes. Huh!

 

9. You think, “but we’re a nation of laws” somehow trumps biblical teachings on how immigrants are to be treated.

 

You didn’t expect me to forget all of those years where you taught me that the Bible is the “final authority for all matters of living,” did you?

Good, because I didn’t– but it certainly sounds like you did. I’m reminded every time you dismiss what the Bible teaches about the treatment of immigrants with, “But, but… we’re a nation of laws!”

I thought you’d said, “We have a responsibility to follow God’s law, not man’s law!” just a few weeks ago. Silly me!

 

8. Your church is planning a “patriotic worship service” for the 4th of July.

 

Let me simplify this for you: there’s no such thing as “patriotic worship” unless you’re willing to simply admit you’re worshipping your own country.

You were the ones who taught me that if God isn’t the focal point of our worship, that it’s sinful idolatry. Surely you remember Jesus saying, “It is written: worship the Lord your God and serve him only”?

Apparently there’s now room for two. Strange!

 

7. You instinctively applaud when Trump threatens to “bomb the shit” out of people, but quickly push back if someone quotes what Jesus taught about violence and enemy love.

 

Jesus commanded we love our enemies, and that we never repay evil with evil but instead repay evil with good. I mean, it’s right there in the red words. I still have it underlined from 1984.

But now when I quote that in response to your thinking that it’s all cute when Trump wants to “knock the crap” out of a protestor or nuke a country, you tell me that I’m twisting scripture.

Sorry, but I think siding with Trump over Jesus is… as Trump would say: Sad!

 

6. You think that having a filthy mouth and boasting about sexual immorality is a sign of being unsaved, but when it comes to Trump you all of a sudden have a “Who am I to judge?” attitude.

 

I mean, c’mon. I grew up under your guidance and I think we both know that neither one of us ever thought we’d see the day when you became an advocate of not judging. You told me that if I had sex before marriage or used the F-word that it would be evidence I was never saved to begin with.

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that it was Trump, and not Jesus who got you to (selectively) soften up on the whole judging others thing? Interesting!

 

5. You think it’s God-honoring to refuse to bow to a national statue, but that you should be fired from your job, kicked out of the country, or even charged with treason for refusing to stand for the flag.

 

Let me get this straight: When everyone obeyed the king and bowed down to the national statue and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused– under the pain of death– to pledge their allegiance to anyone except God, they were the good guys of the story…

But fast forward to present day America, and the good guys are actually the ones who want to force everyone to pay respect to the national symbol? Plot twist!

 

4. You want the nation to return to “biblical values”… except for all those socialist sounding biblical things like caring for the poor, welcoming the stranger, giving food to the hungry, etc.

 

So you really want the nation to return to “biblical values”? You do realize that when Israel lived under God’s law (which you love to quote when talking of same sex marriage) also included laws that mandated the rich be taxed, even down to the food they had, and that the wealth was to be redistributed to the poor and immigrants, yes?

Or is this the one situation where you’d rather not remember that you keep saying, “But God’s law never changes”? Confused!

 

3. Your church spends one month a year celebrating the story of refugee family who fled their violent homeland and secretly crossed the border to safety, only to return home years later where their son became another unarmed person of color killed by the state’s violent security forces because they “felt threatened”…

 

Yet you spend 11 months of the year missing the obvious. Ironic! 

 

2. You claimed Barack Obama’s election was the result of evil forces, but the minute Trump was sworn into office you started quoting verses about how “God picks a nation’s kings and queens.”

 

For real, how does this work? Did God only get involved and start deciding elections with the past election cycle, or did you just start quoting this verse after the black guy left?

There’s a lot in this world I don’t know, but I do happen to know the answer to *that* one. Easy!

 

1. You spent the 90’s saying “character counts” but now say, “We don’t vote for a national pastor.”

 

Ahh, my absolute favorite sign you’re following Trumpianity instead of Christianity.

Version of you from today, I’d like you to meet the version of you from the Clinton administration. You were supposedly so morally outraged that you coined the term, “Character Counts” to explain why you felt Clinton was unfit for office.

The version of you from today? My, my… as I listen to you explain that “We don’t vote for a national pastor…” I am keenly aware of how having the political power changes things. Totally!

So you’re a loyal Trump supporter and a loyal Christian?

I’m not so sure.

You might want to take a more self-critical look and make sure you’re following Christianity, and not Trumpianity. Really!

Benjamin L. Corey

Benjamin L. Corey

BLC is an author, speaker, scholar, and global traveler, who holds graduate degrees in Theology & Intercultural Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and earned his doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller.

He is the author of Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, and Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus.

It's not the end of the world, but it's pretty #@&% close. Trump's America & Franklin Graham's Christianity must be resisted.

Join the resistance: Subscribe to posts and email updates from BLC!

You Might Also Like:

Books from BLC:

What you think

Post Comments:

  • I have never claimed Trump was a Christian. Or agree with everything he does. However on the immigration issue it isn’t about them coming here, it is about doing it legally. If you feel otherwise then I suggest and encourage you to remove your security system from your home, remove your doors and windows, remove your fence around your yard and allow anyone who wills to come and go as they please. And while you are at it allow them to take everything you own and is dear to you and change it to suit the supposed thing they are fleeing from. How about it going to give them your wife, daughter, or son? Are you going to give up your money, retirement, etc…
    Here is a little background on me. I am disabled (meaning I can no longer work). I wish I could. I loved working and definitely had more money. I served my country as well. But when I became disabled (spine and PTSD) I got denied three times for disability even though I paid into the system for decades. When I finally did get my disability (after numerous lawsuits) my monthly check is well below the poverty level. Yet I am supposed to think it is ok for someone who hasn’t paid a penny into the system to get more than I ever will? How about you? Are you going to pay for me? Or are you just full of hot air?

  • Basically this shows up really well the selective nature of Evangelicalism’s Scripture use, and that they make things up as they go along.

    No surprise there. There is no integrity in these people at all.

  • . You think, “but we’re a nation of laws” somehow trumps biblical teachings on how immigrants are to be treated.. Obama treated them the same way, but you wouldn’t remember that, would you?

  • I am amazed (but probably shouldn’t be) at how little any of these comments have to do with the article above. Seems it’s all about getting your own personal political message across. Screaming into the wind, because YOUR view takes precedence over what you could learn from another human being. Where is the self-examination (search my heart, oh God)? Where is the desire to grow in “the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”? Stop. Breathe. Reflect.

    • Thank you, this was, as you say, very instructive. It’s important to try and understand where people are coming from rather than deal in caricatures. Only by listening to them and understanding them can we address their concerns directly and hopefully persuade them.

  • Despite the new SCOTUS and whatever happens to Roe V Wade, we will see Evangelical Christianity collapse and it might happen very soon, unfortunately it might take all of Christianity down with it. Because these people are so loud and in front when people hear the word CHRISTIAN, they think of these assclowns. fact that they cling to Trump and are even supporting a political campaign of a Legal Brothel Owner in Nevada shows that they are in decline. It is why they are so rushing this new court nominee they know time is running out. Their base and leadership is getting older and young adults are not exactly joining up rather are leaving religion in droves. That is a sure sign of impending doom.

    The declines are slow bit the collapse is fast and sudden. Rome, USSR, Ringling Bros, Sign of the Beef Carver on Mich Ave in Dearborn MI all saw years of steady decline and then one day it all crumbled. Before the USSR collapsed we had the coup against Gorbachev as the old guard made one last gasp for power, but the youth under Yeltsin rose up and shut it down. We may see the youth shut these people down. I am seeing signs that they are active and engaged, March for our Lives and other grassroots voter drives are popping up. We say in NY Oscasio-Cortez taking out a establishment Democrat, she has BOTH parties scared.

    • Your analysis is self-serving and delusional. The new Justice will make it impossible for Progressives to legislate from the bench but the court will not overturn Roe as our society continues it downhill path to destruction. No one is clinging to Trump. We are just astonished at how fast he is fulfilling his campaign promises. And here is the big take away. It is the Liberal/Progressive base that is eroding in front of your eyes; #WalkAway.

        • Progressives are in a sheer panic. Armageddon is apparently happening again because Trump actually nominated a pearson to be on the Supreme Court. I heard this on CNN. Damn where is the nearest bomb shelter.

      • how fast? Let’s see. No wall paid for by mexico. No healthcare that is better than the ACA. No infrastructure plan, failure to get North Korea to do anything, still working with Russia and doin their bidding, starting pointless trade wars. A tax giveaway that helped no one but the wealthy. Bob, you are a fool.

          • Why not…your only spewing out Fox News huckster news…

            …and besides, did Miss Jane say anything that has no substance, don’t think so and you don’t think so either, because ya couldn’t reply with a concrete rebuttal to her facts…instead ya chose divulging into what ya think as being cute in your nonsensical remark…

            • You and Miss Jane share the same level of debate – grade school.
              I’ll give one chance to reply with some facts. What does “still working with Russia and doin their bidding” mean?
              If you can answer that general statement I will reply to you nonsensical comments.

          • Good to know you don’t dispute all the other bad stuff Trump is doing/not doing — also, have you heard of our First Amendment right to criticize our (corrupt) leaders?

              • oh and don’t forget how your leader trump has desperately insisted it doesn’t apply. You know, his lies about “fake news”? And applauding murderous dictators who don’t allow any dissent. Let me ask you, Bob: how does it feel to have a president who thinks Kim Jong Un is a great guy, when this dictator murders his own people, and doesn’t allow your religion in his land? For all of the claims of persecution of Christians, it’s great to see so many Christians have no problem with Trump applauding such people.

              • No, he hasn’t. No wall paid for by mexico. No super great healthcare to replace the ACA. No infrastructure plan. No help for miners. A trade war with the rest of the world that will bankrupt farmers. He has seperated familes with no idea on how to reunite them. He has lied about NATO and lied about him being the reaosn that they pay more (that was Obama’s deal still playing out). He has encouraged vermin like wannabee Nazis and Confederates and other bigots to come out from under their rocks. For a country that fought against Nazis, to have a presidentn who says they are “fine people” is disgusting. but I know you don’t have a problem with it at all, Bob. More is the pity.

              • Like the promise to build the wall and make Mexico pay for it? at least he’s keeping his promise to Make Russia Great Again …

                • Sorry you are unable to communicate.Your comment about the Wall is premature and duplicitous. One one hand you root for him to fail and on the other you criticize him for not going fast enough.
                  What is the point of your Russia comment besides invective?

                  • I’m guessing the 53% of Americans who today disapprove of Trump (and the majority who voted against him in the 2016 popular vote) have similar complaints — I’m not rooting for him to fail (the wall is a good idea), Trump is doing a great job of failing all by himself — as for Russia, his bias on Putin’s behalf (and against our allies) is a matter of almost daily public record …

                    • Trump’s approval rating has been climbing despite historic opposition from all parties. His rating is above Obamas at the same point. The popular vote does not elect Presidents in our system. Thank God that Hillary did not get elected.
                      Trumps accomplishments in the economy and foreign policy are already legendary and now a second Supreme Court appointment.

                    • Hi Bob — I didn’t vote for Hillary either … I’m assuming you’re a Christian, so how do you justify Trump’s moral unfitness to be President?

          • If I may, might I sit in for Miss Jane…Praising Putin and Russia on every turn he gets while mocking and criticizing time honored American allies, Trump is a blessing to Putin in creating rifts and fissures between Putin’s perceived foes.

            Russia is the one country that has arguably benefited the most from the Trump administration’s insistence that other countries (including America’s Western allies) reduce their petroleum imports from Iran to zero or face U.S. sanctions.

            By going through America to China to protect himself from current and potential U.S. sanctions against Russia, Russian, Alexander Voloshin, who headed Putin’s presidential administration, was able to secretly invest in Houston based ‘American Ethane’ signed a multibillion dollar export deal with China. Trump was promoting this transaction as a ruse in stating it was ““American prosperity and trade” in deals that would generate “thousands of American jobs,” when in fact it was a front for Russian opportunists.

            When Syria used another nerve gas agent on its citizens that was OK’d by Putin, the world demanded more sanctions be added to Russia and Syria. Trump nixed efforts for the U.S. to impose anymore sanctions onto Russia.

            17 U.S. agencies insist Putin meddled in our 2017 elections, yet Trump defends and believes Putin’s denials of it over the nation’s intelligence agencies.

            Just to add…Why do ya think the entire Russian parliament stood up and cheered when it was announced Trump had won the presidency…

              • So what ya say…are your blinders that efficient…for a sitting president to criticize our allies, the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies while lavishing praise on our adversary, who we know meddled in our democracy and poisoned those folk over in the U.K. with a nerve agent that only has Russian fingerprints…is of an egregious nature of unethical proportions to this nation of ours. It is not only a backstabbing affront to our allies, but is a destructive effort to divide the U.S. and destabilize our democracy. Something Putin, ever since he was in the KGB has only dreamed of doing until Trump came along…

                Tell me why Trump always insists on having one-on-one meetings with Putin, except for a Russian translator or one-on-one meetings with Russian diplomats except for Russian photojournalists…to give away more classified info like he did with Lasrov and Kisylak?

            • I will answer all of your comments. But you have to realize that you have provided no substance, cites, information, comment or really anything but personal opinion. You certainly had the opportunity with Voloshin.

              1. “Praising Putin and Russia on every turn he gets while mocking and criticizing time honored American allies, Trump is a blessing to Putin in creating rifts and fissures between Putin’s perceived foes.”
              This is an editorial comment based on your knowledge without any quotes, dates or sources. It is the kind of statement that no one can respond to factually.

              2. “Russia…benefited…” This is someone’s opinion without any justification provided. Who knows if this is true. But explain why trying to stop oil flowing to Iran is a bad thing?

              3. Certainly you provide us an article on Voloshin “secretly” investing in American Ethane and explain why whatever Trump said was deceptive.

              4. Certainly you can provide the details of why Trump dropped additional sanctions because of what you said.

              5. Your 17 agencies comment is interesting. First it is a lie. There were only four agencies and the other agencies acquiesced without any independent knowledge. You do not know what Trump believes in this matter either. Do you?

              6. Why don’t you ask one or tell us.

              • Bobby, look it up for yourself, as there are many articles covering these, just type in a few key words…for if I do it for ya, you’ll simply regurgitate ‘fake news’…

                  • Oh really, just as I s’posed…there are numerous articles and more on these Trumpoid topics. By the way big boy with the little britches…it was indeed 17 agencies, yeah, maybe four did the actual legwork, but all the rest concurred with the findings…what are you saying the rest of our intelligence agencies shouldn’t believe the four’s results and conclusions to their investigations.

                    Ya kinda remind me of that Beatle song, ya know, the one that goes like this, “Cry baby cry make your mother cry, you’re old enough to know better…cry baby cry…

                    • First article on google, Politifact changed it’s mind from 17 to 4.
                      “17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid”

                    • It was not 17 agencies.
                      The others did not verify anything.
                      The spread to the 17 agencies was from Obama to give a wide dispersal to all the Trump conversations they unmasked.
                      Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

                      By the way Lady Jane had a complete meltdown.

                    • Fox News and Trump has ya all wrapped up cowpunch…the Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence all agreed with the FBI, CIA, NSA and Director of National Intelligence that indeed, Russia meddled in our elections.

                      Your vainlessly trying to ‘trump’ relevance over quantity, there Bobby…simply because either way the Russian intelligence conclusion remains valid…Dan Coates even says so with a “red alert” forbearing Russia is gonna attempt it in our 2018 and 2020 elections…what has Trump done to stop it…nothing…nothing but praise for Putin even after Rosenstein forewarned Trump of the 12 Russian military intelligence officers have been indicted by a grand public jury…

            • Idiots more fairly describe Democrat men. The funny thing is that the President is your President also and you can’t do anything about it. Maybe you can find him at a restaurant and try to harass him ?

              • How lame…when Obama was president where was your patriotism then…besides after today’s Finland summit meeting with Trump/Putin…ya got nothing…

                Besides Trump, the entire GOP are traitors. Even Trump’s own staff admits Trump appeared weak to Putin. It’s worthless debating with you…Trump could take a dump on your thanksgiving table and ya would still praise him…KGB Putin could take a dump on Trump’s thanksgiving table and he would still praise Putin. We’re done here with Republicanism’s facade patriotism…

                  • What do you call the actions of the Trump/Putin summit…do you agree and still defend Trump or not…no more of your terse evasive run arounds; so go ahead and defend Trump with your feckless mentality. Ya got the last word, because I’m done here with your blind and ignoble drooling comments…

                    • Based on your rousing endorsement of my previous comments all I can say is your understanding of Foreign Policy is simply non-existent. You want to criticize the President every day for everything be my guest; you are not alone. But you are wrong.

                    • Good because I need to spend more time studying Russian. According to every Liberal pundit today President Trump is giving control of the USA to Russia….

          • trying to destroy NATO, attacking our allies, ignoring that it invaded a sovereign nation, repeatedly saying how great Putin is. The poor little fellow has a thing for murderous dictators. Now, Bob, how is it following someone that your bible says is evil. He is an adulterer who should be stoned to death per your bible. he cheats employees which your god says is wrong, He is a self admittted sexual abuser, he claims that wannabee nazis are “fine people”, he does his best to harm the poor and the sick. He has no idea what the bible says at all. And you idiots follow him. Thanks for showing that you have no more respect for your bible than I do.

            • Your political comments are just Democrat talking points.
              Your biblical comments do show your lack of understanding. Stoning adulterers?
              Lack of respect for the bible is problematic. Disagreeing with what is says is different than lack of respect. A book that has more published copies than any book in history must be considered by religious and non-religious. Failure to recognize that shows your lack of judgment in these matters.

              • And those points are true. Your president is a failure and works with Russia. Nice to see you not be able to rebut one of them.

                Wow, one more Christian who has no idea what his bible says. Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of[a] his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion, their blood is upon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is depravity; they shall be burned to death, both he and they, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Good for you!
                It’s hilarious that you want to claim that since the bible’s been published more, it should be considered magical. How many are laying disused in hotels? How many have been bought by Christians to give out and then they are just thrown away? And it’s great to see a Christian defend an anti-christ. And since the Qu’ran or heck, Scientology have been published many many times, per your idiotic claim, they should be respected too. How silly.

                Now, I expect you’ll whine and say you don’t have to follow these laws. However, JC himself says you do, and funny how hateful people like you run to the Old Testment to back up your nonsense.

                • You made no points. You are not even as good as the bad pundits on CNN. “Destroy NATO” is something you would expect from a child or a Liberal on a temper tantrum. Which is it?
                  You quote Leviticus. Those are laws that governed Israel when they were ruled by a King. Lucky for you that they are not in force in this country. You can’t read either. Magical? Get some glasses.
                  So to summarize you hate Conservatives and the Bible and God; typical of many Liberals. How does this make you better than everyone else?

                  • Yep, I was right. You are a ignorant Christian who doesn’t remember that Jesus Christ said that his followers are to follow his fathers laws until the earth and heaven pass away. Since both are still here, you are ignoring your savior because it’s tooo inconvenient to follow his commands. And in that same set of verses is where so very many Christians get their hatred for homosexuals. So, we have Christians like you cherry picking the bible to make your god in your image. And yep, magical, Bob, because Christians claim that the bible came from their god, quite a magical being.
                    Thanks for admiting aI made a point, when you quoted me about destroying NATO. Nice to see you lying again. I wonder, do you remember your bible saying that your god hates lies and liars? Probably not, because it’s very likely you’ve never actually read your bible. You just listen to people who tell you what you want to hear. The laws from Leviticus aren’t from when Israel was ruled by a “king”. The israelites didn’t have a king until much later, but of course, Jews and Christians have no idea when the laws from Exodus and Leviticus came into being since the exodus never happened, sine no one has a date for it that isn’t contradicted by the other believers.
                    It’s a shame that you have decided to lie, Bob. Nope, I don’t hate the bible or God or conservatives. I have no problem in correcting them. I do hate that you lie and you try to hurt people. Well, Bob, I don’t choose to lie like you do and the orange idiot you support does. So, I’m at least better than you and him. And funny how you go silent when I have shown you that your god wants you to murder adulterers. How wonderfully dishonest.

  • I recently saw a social media question that asked “What is one of the hardest lessons life has taught you?” My answer? Religion doesn’t make people better.

    • Religion is often a kind of magnifying glass. If extreme ugliness is present somewhere (or inside someone, character-wise), then it gets bigger and bigger when seen through that religious lens.

  • a very good article I am amazed at how many Christians have no problem following an anti-Christ and that all he needed to do is to promise them that all of their bigoted notions would be made law.

      • ah, the claims of Chrisitans who want to be martyrs and who try to make believe that not being allowed to force what they believe on others to be persecution. It’s sad that they devalue Christians who really are persecuted.

        • As a pastor I’m as appalled as you are at the level of white evangelical support for Trump — but I still try to keep an open mind that the motivations of some could stem from an honest (if perhaps misguided, as you suggest) concern for their religious freedom …

            • With many millions I’ve learned the HARD way the truth of Pascal’s dictum, “The heart has reasons of which reason knows nothing”

              • and it isn’t true at all. The “heart” is ignorant nonsense. All you are claimign is “different way of knowing” and funny how Christians make the same claims and completely disagree with each other. Ob, tell me how I should know that your version of Christianity is the right one and no one else is. What do you have that they don’t?

                  • That may be the case. You are a typical Christian in that you ignore the parts you don’t like. Again, how should I know your version of Christianity is right. You have claimed so, just like the Christians who don’t agree with you. And pointing out how your claims fail isn’t “hostility” or “insults”. It is pointing out facts. You may not like them, and I understand that. You try to use the Gould claim of seperate magisteria to keep your religion in the face of the fact that it isn’t true. And from other post, that it dosn’t matter if Jesus is real, I wonder about your position.

                    • [ Reposting this as it was “detected as spam” for some reason … ]

                      With respect, I bracket (but don’t ignore) the parts I don’t like not because I’m Christian but because I’m HUMAN — and being human I don’t claim to know anything more than the little piece of the Elephant of biblical truth I can see/understand for myself, always “as through a glass, darkly.” I practice docta ignorantia, a self-aware ignorance that grants me empathy with every other human being who doesn’t have the full picture of Reality either.

                      Also, I’m surprised you seem unaware that not all Christians are fundamentalists who take a literal and inerrantist view of scripture. Many millions of us progressive Christians around the world try to use our (limited!) reason to discern the Bible’s babies from its bathwater — and the attacks we suffer from some Christians for doing so are as harsh as those made by many atheists …

          • I agree. A mere decade ago I would have probably voted for Trump while honestly thinking God wanted me too. As bizarre as it seems, and especially in light of Jesus’ teachings, I’m convinced conservative evangelicals actually think God is on their side for supporting Trump.

              • For me, the context hinges on the culture of Jesus’ original hearers and what is recorded in Luke 19:11, “As they were listening to this, he went on to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.”

                Common Jews in Jesus’ day longed to be free from oppression; oppression from the Roman Empire and oppression from religion and its burdensome rules. But their idea of the kingdom of God was tied up with OT images of God restoring Israel by defeating enemy nations by violent overthrow. And it seems Jesus toppled that way of thinking by preaching love, humility, forgiveness and compassion, even for enemies, and these characteristics were to distinguish true citizens of his kingdom from those of the world. And Jesus’ followers were to go out and proclaim this as well.

                It seems that the gospels (well, the Synoptics especially) have in view (as the background for many of the judgment passages) the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that Jesus’ warnings were within that context. So for those desiring for God to be their ruler, to come through the tribulation which would accompany these events, they needed to do it God’s way. Those who resorted to violence and retribution, which was not the way of God, would ultimately be slaughtered (which happened) by Rome. These, the “enemies of God”, suffered a natural fate of violence. Again, Jesus’ comments were in the form of a parable so there was metaphor in all this.

                By the way, I could be wrong on this lol. As a Christian, I try to filter most everything through Jesus’ greatest commandment to love God and neighbor. But in all honesty, no one can claim absolute authority on biblical interpretation and it really irks me when anyone claims they do. Sorry for such a long response but I thought you raised a good point with the reference to Luke there.

                • yep, he told a parable. Now, tell me what his words of killing people who don’t accept him in front of him “really” means. There is no “natural fate”, i’s just murder. In this parable, JC is telling those who accept him should murder those who do not. You are quite correct that no one can claim absolute authority on what was meant in the bible. Doesn’t that make you wonder why the bible is claimed as the “word of god”?

                  • “JC is telling those who accept him should murder those who do not.”

                    That’s not what I understand his words to mean. But I guess that’s the thing. Maybe that’s why one should never argue politics or religion. But all the blogs would disappear then ; )

                    “Doesn’t that make you wonder why the bible is claimed as the “word of god”?”

                    We sure hear that a lot, that’s for sure. But man is the one who deemed it to be “the word of God.” The Bible never really defines itself in those terms though.

                    Appreciate the discussion though. Thanks

              • Let’s for the sake of argument say Jesus is just the literary embodiment of the hope for deliverance of an oppressed people — progressive Christians keep the ethical baby and throw out the dogmatic bath water …

                • so, do you believe that Jesus Christ, who isn’t a Nazarene, if you look at the gospels, isn’t a real being? This entity, literal or figurative, said that it came to divide families, and that one should murder people who don’tn believe in it. This entity said to obey its father’s laws, which said to murder homosexuals, to murder people who work on the sabbath (somethign that Christians can’t agree on), to is supposed to come and murder everyoen who doesn’t agree with it in Revelation. It seems you’ve created a messiah and a god in your image, far better than that in the bible. I don’t need to believe in something that says genocide is fine and murdering people who don’t agree with me is fine. Do you want to believe in such a being?

                  • With respect, It doesn’t matter if Jesus is “real” or not — progressive Christians ask (with the holy martyr Bonhoeffer), “Who is Jesus for us TODAY?” — and we firmly bracket the genocidal God of the Old Testament as being created in OUR violent image …

                    • That’s…. hmmm… interesting to hear a Christian claim that it doesn’t matter if his savior exists. Really? For that makes teh bible essentially worthless, if we are only going to be decent human beings. No god is required for anything then. You’ve made your Jesus in your image and have decided that the bible, which your supposed savior agreed with at least in the “laws of his father” is to be ignored. If this entity was a Jew, then he believed in the murder of people who did all sorts of things. He picked and chose just like Christians now.

                    • Human beings are always making God/Jesus in their own image, for their own convenience — I don’t mind confessing I do it too, and it’s one of the strongest temptations any Christian faces …

                      Would you mind if we changed subjects and talked about the vastly greater domain of things that you and I may have in common? I engage atheists often, not to win them over to my position but to discover that we very often share a humanitarian ethic/agenda, and could work together to make the world a better place for all of us to share if we could somehow overcome our tendency to attack or demonize those who seem so different from us …

                    • It doesn’t surprise me that you want to change the subject from your religion being nothing more than a human construct. We may indeed have a lot in common, but I don’t find that it is a good or noble thing to spread nonsense like Christians do. I find it deceitful. How do you think that making false claims as if they are true makes the world a better place? I can work with you but I will not let false claims stand, eve if you think there may be a benefit to them. I don’t like when someone thinks that they can take away people’s right to make an informed decision. I do have a question for you: do you speak out against other Christians when they don’t share the humanitarian ethic we do? In so many cases, I find that Christians won’t confront each other publically because they know that if they admit that part of them are wrong, then they will show that there is really no reason to believe in any of them. I find a lot of Christians tacitly accept the actions of other Christians because of this.

                    • I’m (further) surprised you haven’t heard of post-modernism, our reigning cultural paradigm, whose mantra is “Your truth is not my truth” — there is no univocal Truth (metaphysical that is, not scientific) we can all agree on, just those parts of the Elephant we find convenient?

                    • Post modernism is solipsistic nonsense for some people who want to pretend that they know some magic secret to the universe. If this is the truth, then no one should be harmed by putting their bare hand in molten steel. I’d be happy to watch while you did that and hear you claim that we have our own “truth” while your hand incinerates.
                      Now, how do you think that lying to people makes the world a better place?

                    • Of course we’re talking about metaphysical truth, not hard science — they’re the truths we have debates about, like the validity of religion as a way of understanding a dimension of human consciousness that cannot be reduced to your random materialist account. For example, we can have different opinions about whether it’s really a good thing to remove your hand from the molten steel — why bother saving yourself in your account? why is ANYTHING worth doing over something else? why is the world worth making a better place? There’s also the psychological aspect of religious faith, lauded by an atheist in this recent NY Times article:
                      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/opinion/why-we-need-religion.html

          • If it were an honest concern, then it could be allayed by the truth.

            The truth is that “prayer in schools” is about school led/endorsed prayer, not students making the individual choice to pray. The truth is that people are allowed to say “merry Christmas”, and some businesses use a more inclusive greeting because they want more people to shop there.

            The truth is that, were this an honest concern, their concerns would have laid at rest many years ago. But, as a means of feeling like martyrs or feeling brave and believing whatever they need to believe in order for their side to win, they don’t need to worry about what’s true.

    • I think even the most liberal Democrats would trade the corrupt Trump for the ‘Boy Scout’ Reagan in a heartbeat — he seemed to at least have a high moral character, whether one agreed with his policies or not …

      • His moral character was certainly in line with Evangelicals: dog whistles to racists, our first divorced president (correct me if I’m wrong) which is only okay for Republicans. FWIW, he signed abortion into law as governor of California several years before it became a hot button issue.

        But to your point, he behaved professionally and with decorum and that is something I dearly miss.

        • Yes thanks, that was exactly my point! — we didn’t have to keep the children out of the room when Reagan was on TV. As for his divorce, this pastor believes God’s grace is available to ALL who are open to it by their faith — but good for you for still believing the things Jesus actually talked about (compared to evangelicals who hate gays but now ignore divorce and adultery) …

          • Your children see much worse every day and in every way on the Internet. I don’t know many evangelicals but the ones I know don’t hate gays. They hate the judicial system that decided to give their marriage legitimacy. But does God accept these marriages?

            • “They hate the judicial system that decided to give their marriage legitimacy. But does God accept these marriages?”

              Why? What’s it to the evangelicals? And whether God accepts it, well that’s between the marriage partners and God. I would take offense if someone were to question whether God accepted my marriage to my wife. If people hate the judicial system for legalizing SSM, then the claim that evangelicals hate gays has some validity. It’s not about the Bible, but about bigotry. If it was about the Bible, then evangelicals would hate the judicial system for not prohibiting marriages between the previously divorced.

                • You sidestepped the salient point…. “If it was about the Bible, then evangelicals would hate the judicial system for not prohibiting marriages between the previously divorced.”

                  Is adultery not a “big deal?” I seem to recall it being one of the Top 10. It IS about bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance, and yes… sometimes hate. Whether one is willing to accept it for what it is, or not, is beside the point. .

                  • Your reply is illogical. What salient point. You support Ron’s statement without understanding it.
                    Adultery compared to abortion is not a big deal. Adultery affects two people maybe ten; abortion could be responsible for thousands of potential beings never born.

                    • Are you sure God calculates harm from our sins the way you do, Bob? SHAME ON YOU for damaging Christian witness with your ridiculous comments like, “Adultery compared to abortion is not a big deal”

                    • And Bob lies again. It’s great to see such a sad racist try to make crocodile tears about the people he hates.

                    • This is Bob. Bob has claimed that his god is not against adultery and lied about his bible. Bob forgets that his bible says that killing children is fine, and trying to poison a woman if her husband is jealous is fine too. But he probably doesn’t know that those things are in the bible too. The bible says nothing about abortion, right or wrong. However, it does say that homosexuals should be killed, as well as people who work on the sabbath. Bob picks and chooses what he wants to follow.

                    • I’ll take one more crack at your Teflon Bob, and then I’m done. Let’s use your “reasoning” — you said a single adultery/divorce only hurts at most 10 people but abortion hurts millions. But adultery or divorce happens to thousands of families every day, adding up to millions hurt a year — do you see where I’m going with this?

                      Now of course you’ll respond that adultery isn’t murder and that’s true. But according to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, our thoughts can be as murderous as our actions — that’s God’s standard of sin, designed in part to counter our natural tendency to excuse OUR sins but not those of others. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him please! God’s peace to you.

                    • No. Adultery is completely contained in individual conduct. It does not have to happen. The individual decides whether or not to participate. Abortion is the active participation of the individual and the corrupt medical practitioner to engage in forcible terminating a life that God created. See where I am going?

                    • Wrong… I understand it very clearly and it makes perfect sense to anyone not in that river in Egypt.

                      “Adultery affects two people maybe ten” ??? say what? You are beginning to sound like your hero i.e. “I have no organ”. Besides I thought we were talking about SSM not abortion. Please Bob just stay on the canvas, there’s no way you will be able to save face here. Fight another day.

                • Except the the definition of marriage has changed considerably over the past few thousand years. Consider:

                  – Marriage is considered to be a contract between the participants now, not the participant’s families
                  – Children are no longer seen as acceptable marriage prospects (note that the Bible gives no age for when marriages can occur)
                  – Most jurisdictions across the world outlaw plural marriages (which would have landed David, Abraham, Jacob and all the other polygamous men of the Bible in hot water)
                  – Men are no longer expected to impregnate their sisters-in-law if their brother dies without a male heir, a concept called “levirate marriage” and discussed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10
                  – Wives are no longer considered the property of their husbands. On a related note, husbands are no longer legally permitted to assault or rape their wives.
                  – People of different ethnicities are permitted to marry, in spite of religious conservatives’ insistence that that Bible forbade such unions
                  – Love is considered a factor in marriage now. Love plays little role in Biblical marriages. The only case I know of in the entire Bible where married partners were explicitly said to lone one another is Rachel and Jacob (Leah being pretty left out in the cold.)

                  In short, the suggestion that the concept of marriage is immutable is not sustained by the facts. Marriage has changed over the years, a lot, and ALWAYS for the better.

                  • Your argument misses the point over and over. God’s definition has not changed; man’s definition has. The validity and acceptance you seek from God to remove the stigma of SSM you won’t get.

                    • Your god said that no one should get divorced, unless there is evidence of adultery by the woman. Why do Christians like you get divorced? Why does Bob pick and choose?

                    • Actually it is you who is missing the point. As I noted, I recall well when the defenders of anti-miscegenation laws cited the Bible in defense of their views. I have heard Mormon fundamentalists cite the Bible in defense of polygamy. And I have heard men try to defend the abuse of their wives by saying the Bible says they are the masters of their home.

                      I expect that you will respond by saying that all those people are misinterpreting the Bible while your understanding of it is spot on. Guess what: they would say the exact same thing, and history bears them out. The fact is that it was society which decided that anti-miscegenation laws, polygamy and wife-beating are wrong. People like you side with society out of expedience.

                      And given historical precedent, we have EVERY reason to assume that the same will happen with same sex marriage.

                    • I am not just citing the bible I am stating that marriage only exists because God created it and explained to man in detail.
                      the bible is not just defending marriage it reveals the Creator and His purpose.

                    • Well why don’t you tell us where Marriage came from if not from God. Who exactly detailed the concept? When was it invented and why? You can’t even begin to answer these questions.

                    • Bob, you have a far higher tolerance for abuse and arrogance than I do. A dog can always whip a skunk….usually it just ain’t worth it.

                    • Bob is ignorant of history. There has been marriage far longer than his religion. So, Bob, since marriage has been around longer than your religion, it seems that you are lying again. Ancient Egypt had marriage, the ancient Chinese had marriage. The greeks and Romans had marriage. The ancient israelites were polygamous. You are a failure, depending on fear and ignorance.

                    • Let’s see some proof of that ridiculous statement, There has been marriage far longer than his religion, please.
                      As far as being a failure I would look at what you write. It’s nonsense. You have no support or offer of proof for any of those statements. The fear and ignorance comment isn’t even related to the topic.

                    • Where do all legal and social contracts come from? From we the people. I have long since answered why this is: to secure inheritance for one’s offspring and to secure alliances between families. The basis of marriage is, and has always been, social, economic and political. Religion is a late comer to the process.

                    • ” God created it and explained to man in detail.”

                      Ok so when did God explain this to say – the Australian Aborigines?

                    • “Ok so when did God explain this to say – the Australian Aborigines”

                      Through the KJV Bible at the beginning of time. Gosh Bones, you don’t know jack about history 🙄

                  • Your points do not show that marriage between a man and a woman has changed over time at all. It shows certain cultures added things to the marriage not who was to be married to each other.

                    • “Your points do not show that marriage between a man and a woman has
                      changed over time at all.”
                      – I never said it did. I was pointing out that marriage, like all social institutions, does change over time. The popular conservative assertion that marriage has remained unchanged since its inception is demonstrably false.

                      “It shows certain cultures added things to the
                      marriage not who was to be married to each other.”
                      – Read what I wrote again and see how wrong you are. Marriage partners are no longer chosen for a person. Marriages between people of different ethnicities are no longer outlawed (I recall when that was a huge controversy, especially among Southern fundamentalists). Women whose husbands die without producing an heir are no longer required to have one with their brother-in-law, in spite of that the Bible requires. Age is now a consideration with marriage.

                      Almost everything I wrote has to do with who may be married to whom.

                    • Not so David. “Except the the definition of marriage has changed considerably over the past few thousand years.” Not God’s definition only mans. The problem is man wants to commit God to his definition but it doesn’t work that way.

                    • Again, according to the Apostle Paul marriage i a concession to weakness. As there appears to be no Christian denomination which preaches this, despite its Biblical grounding, it is clear that expediency, not Biblical adherence, is the principle at work here.

                    • Hardly. Paul said it is better to get married than burn with passion. You misinterpret again and put words in Paul’s statement that he did not say.

                    • “But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.”
                      I Corinthians 7:6-7 (DRA)

                      Clearly, the literal text supports my point: that Paul supported marriage only as a concession to weakness. But, again, it seems that the literal reading of the text is only to be considered when it agrees with The Party’s platform, which is dominated by expediency.

                    • Your ability to understand the bible is limited. It is apparent each time you quote a verse. As I told you a while ago you missed the Jewish bible school training and it sure shows. For example, if you notice on Ben’s blogs, many people quote Paul to condemn homosexuality. Then several people chime in and argue that this is not correct for a variety of reasons. You are quoting a verse or two from Paul and expect us to believe that Paul considered marriage a concession to weakness. Let’s see if your supporters will agree with you and your new found understanding of marriage.

                • So if it’s not about hate, and it’s not about the Bible, and it’s not about bigotry, then just what is it about then?

                  • Of course it is about the bible. For 3000 years the definition of marriage was one man and one woman.
                    Then 3000 years later a few Judges decided they knew better and change the definition to suit.
                    Where do you think the definition of marriage came from without the bible?

                    • Lol, well a couple things. We best not use the bible’s “definition of marriage” as a template for contemporary society. There were some very odd arrangements in the scriptures. But aside from that, explain to me, if it’s truly about the Bible, why then are conservative evangelicals not hating on the judicial system for allowing previously divorced couples, guilty of adultery, to remarry? You know that reeks of hypocrisy right? And everybody (well apparently not the conservative evangelicals) can see right through this.

                    • That is the problem people have had since the beginning; forget the bible it has to be my way. Without the bible there would be no marriage because no one would know what the word meant.
                      Simple, the judicial system governs a lawful society but is not the enforcement mechanism of Christianity. Why in the world would Christians want the government to regulate marriage; the Catholic Church already does that.

                    • “Without the bible there would be no marriage because no one would know what the word meant.”

                      – Bob, that might be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said, and that is saying something. Marriage has existed in numerous cultures that had never even heard of the Bible. Numerous ancient pagan cultures recognized marriage. Even the Bible recognizes that non-biblical societies recognized marriage. Note the Pharaoh’s reaction to discovering that Sarah was Abraham’s wife after Abraham concealed that fact.

                      Marriage has, historically, had several purposes. It existed so that men could be secure of the identity of their wives’ offspring for inheritance purposes. It also existed to secure alliances between families. Across time and societies we see that marriage has served economic, social and political roles. Marriage as a religious sacrament is, relatively speaking, a new and obscure idea. Indeed, the Apostle Paul states that it is good for men not to marry, celibacy being preferable in his eyes. He permits it only as a concession to human weakness (I Corinthians chapter 7.)

                      The debate in American society has been over marriage as a legal institution. Churches are not required to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. By the same token, the case against same sex marriages requires legal arguments, and “but the Bible says…” is not a legal argument.

                    • Marriage only existed in cultures because they knew about marriage from God. The “bible” was not available until later but the word of God was always available – until certain cultures disregarded it. And where do you think the pagan cultures, like Egypt learned about marriage in the first place?. You might note that the Egyptians consulted the Israelites after the earth was moved out of its orbit because they did not know how to correct the calendar, etc. They had commuication – even if not the same beliefs.

                      Your understanding of Paul is weak also. Marriage exists primarily to populate the species about 15 billion more or less by now. The rest is just peripheral.

                      Same sex marriage advocates wanted the ability to marry to avoid the stigma surrounding them. It also became necessary to do something about healthcare privacy and social benefits. No same sex marriage would be recognized in general with the ruling.

                    • “You might note that the Egyptians consulted the Israelites after the earth was moved out of its orbit because they did not know how to correct the calendar”

                      Wait, what?!

                    • “That is the problem people have had since the beginning; forget the Bible it has to be my way.”

                      Well, that’s not really the issue here. The point being made is how conservative evangelicals cherry-pick scripture to suit their own prejudices. Like, we’re against SSM because we find no record of it in the Bible and so hate the judicial system for legalizing it. But, even though the Bible speaks against divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances, we have no problems with the judicial system for legalizing that one cause society accepts it and our churches are full of those couples.

                      “Simple, the judicial system governs a lawful society but is not the enforcement mechanism of Christianity. “

                      Wait, so first you insist it really is about the Bible with respect to hating the judicial system for legalizing SSM. Now you’re saying that the govt “is not the enforcement mechanism of Christianity.” So which is it?

                    • Of course it is. The word of God has been available to mankind from the beginning printed or not. The concept of marriage being between a man and a woman is from God. This issue is much broader than Evangelicals as all of Christianity knows that marriage is between a man and a woman – so several billion give or take. And it had been that way since man was put on earth.

                      Who do you know that doesn’t cherry pick scriptures to suit? No one. I did not suggest any such thing. You are not interpreting correctly.

                    • “This issue is much broader than Evangelicals as all of Christianity knows that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

                      Well, not “all of Christianity” since there are Christians in a same sex marriage. But regardless, an entrenched view held over centuries literally has no bearing on whether or not God himself accepts one’s marriage. Unless you presume to think organized Christianity always speaks for God. Do you think Christians we’re speaking for God over centuries of condoning the enslavement of others?

                      “And it (‘marriage is between a man and a woman) had been that way since man was put on earth.”

                      No it hasn’t. The OT is full of polygamous marriages even among the patriarchs. And nowhere do we find a record of God condemning it. The point is that one absolutely positively cannot find a template in the Bible governing marriage to be singularly defined no matter how much you want it to be that way.

                      “Who do you know that doesn’t cherry pick scriptures to suit?”

                      The problem is not when one does such a thing, but rather when one does it with a presumed authority. I have no problem when someone says, well I believe the Bible says such and such, but I realize other passages would call my view into question. Unfortunately, what we often get is, well the Bible says such and such and that settles it because God said it (while pretending the other passages calling such a view into question somehow don’t count).

            • So just because kids see bad stuff on the internet that excuses the vileness that Trump exposes them to?!? and you should leave God out of it, given Trump’s track record of adultery, paying off porn stars, owning casinos with strip clubs, bragging about groping women, cheating contractors, etc etc …

              • Trump is not vile. He is an American businessman who loves his country; unlike you who are disgusted by your country. Trump’s personal conduct is none of your business any more than someone who is sitting next to you in church. You list his “sins” as if you are his confessor; you are not. Because he decided to run for office his opponents proffered all this garbage and present it like it is fact. You believe it because Trump is not a Progressive/Liberal and you hate the fact that the Great Criminal, Hillary Clinton, did not win. That’s all there is to your argument. It is little more than a childish tantrum disguised as a biblical affront.

                • Bob, you’re obviously not even reading my responses to you (e.g., I didn’t vote for Hillary). My country doesn’t disgust me, just the elected leaders who undermine and betray its values. Were you equally respectful of Bill Clinton’s “privacy” when he was president? Because I wasn’t, and thought he should have resigned or been removed from office — his amorality was just as destructive to our country as Trump’s. SHAME ON YOU.

                  • Of course I read your responses. I have responded to you ad nauseam.
                    Your idea of when a President should resign or be removed is not what our laws say.
                    Destructive to our country is removing God from all public places, allowing abortion to be used as birth control and ruling SSM to be called a marriage. Shame on you for not speaking up on this site about that.

                • “Trump’s personal conduct is none of your business any more than someone who is sitting next to you in church“

                  This coming from the guy who thinks the govt should interfere in the private lives of gay folks by prohibiting them from marrying lol.

                  • Your thinking is becoming clouded on this issue. The government is the vehicle that allowed SS couples to “marry.” My point is that the designation ” marriage” is inappropriate for SS couples.

                    • Why should you care? That’s their own private life. Just like Trump’s is nobody’s business right?

                    • You’ll pardon me for not buying the God bit. It seems like you believe that God wants you to continuously look the other way when it comes to Trump and his sexual indiscretions, while simultaneously decrying as immoral the actions of a same sex monogamous relationship between two people who love and are committed to one another. So to you, God apparently is all about accepting wealthy, straight, GOP white males who like to sleep around (providing it’s the opposite sex of course), but not about accepting LGBT folks in a committed monogamous SSM.

                    • Sorry. The LGBT is no more loving and committed than any other marriage – and that record is piss poor.
                      Why do you focus on Trump other than irrational hatred of the current President. What responsibility do you or I have for his personal life. He has a big job to do and he inherited another large mess left by Obama and his Utopian visions of
                      the world. Let him do the job; critique his performance but let this petty, unrelenting personal attack go.

                    • “The LGBT is no more loving and committed than any other marriage – and that record is piss poor.”

                      How can you SO miss the point here? The issue is not that all SSM are committed and monogamous. No one claims that. The point is why you would deny the opportunity to those that ARE, while simultaneously looking the other way with respect to Trump’s infidelity.

                      “Why do you focus on Trump other than irrational hatred of the current President.”

                      Since when does calling out illogical biblical standards over how you view SSM vs how you look the other way on Trump translate to me hating Trump? I’m not unrelentingly attacking him. I’m just unrelentingly pointing out your inconsistencies.

  • All of you Democrats/liberals are uninformed dolts. Informed people know communist vote Democrat, socialist vote Democrat, Islamist vote Democrat, Abortionist (baby killers) vote Democrat, America haters vote Democrat. LGBT & Pedophiles vote Democrat. Prisoners vote Democrat, illegals vote Democrat, Drug runners vote Democrat, Human traffickers vote Democrat, Muslim refugees vote Democrat, Muslim terrorist in America vote Democrat, welfare recipients vote Democrat. non-workers vote Democrat, atheist vote Democrat, and the “dead” vote Democrat. Therefore, Democrats = evil and what’s wrong in America. That leaves hardworking Patriots and Judeo-Christians who voted for President Trump. We won the election by a land slide so accept it. We had to accept and bare Muslim Obama’s treason against us and America for 8 years. Don’t start crying, Snowflakes because you can’t comprehend the truth.

    • Much of what you say is sadly true.

      Obama was not a Muslim as far as I can see but he was a massive Islamic sympathiser a bit like Corbyn in the UK.

        • Yes Trump loves money too much he should as all countries should cut ties with Saudi Arabia and other evil Islamic nations agreed!

          • Not only has he not cut ties with Saudi Arabia he’s financing their bombing of Yemen.

            Trump is actually a bigger supporter of Muslims than Obama was.

            Once again your lies are found out.

            • What lies? Why do you post slanders and attacks against me? I am trying to be reasonable and even agreed with much of what you say.

              Trump calls Muslim terrorists out and is not politically correct about it which is great.

              • Trump gave the terrorists $110 billion in weapons.

                And you accuse obama of being a muslim.

                You’re a f###ing idiot.

    • I can begin to see why you are a Trump supporter. He is unhinged and you are. He plays fast and loose with facts, so do you. He slanders, so do you. He traffics in conspiracy theories, ditto. I will repeat what I said before, you deflect. You do not answer the accusations or even offer support for your bolstering up of a tyrannical, misogynist, racist president. When threatened, he lashes out blindly, so do you. You prove the general observation that the overwhelming white evangelical support for an evil man, was about xenophobia and the eroding of white privilege in America. It is racism in the guise of religion. The continued vitriol leveled at our first Black American president by white evangelicals is so telling. Burned any crosses lately?

      150 years have passed since the American Civil War and the blinding hatred of some white Christians is still present. A hatred that sought the enslavement of blacks, and murdered any non-whites that stood up to their bigotry. Lest we forget, the Baptists split in two over the “right” to own other humans based on the color of their skin. We cannot forget the evils perpetrated by “good” white Christians in the Deep South, the lynchings, firebombings and denials of basic human rights to non-whites there. The continued misogyny within the S. Baptist church. You are a deeply disturbed individual, in denial of your own bigotry and racist tendencies. Sadly, you are not alone, or unusual amongst Trump supporters claiming religion but denying the power thereof. I pity you in your delusion.

      • “… in denial of your own bigotry and racist tendencies.”

        You may be giving sandi too much credit there Kirk. He might proudly admit it.

  • The old Democratic Party logo. as it had existed for decades:


    Note that the donkey, while technically a beast, is mentioned several times in scripture as being present at or even participating in powerful miraculous and holy events, such as Balaam’s donkey talking to him to warn him about the angel he couldn’t see, the pregnant Mary riding a donkey from Nazareth to Bethlehem to give birth to the Savior, and 3⅓ decades later said Savior riding a donkey colt in triumph through the gates of Jerusalem and being greeted with Hosanahs and palm leaves, on His way to give His life for sin.

    Note also the four stars: all five-pointed, and all right-side up, like the ones on the U.S. flag, but also like the ones representing the Star of David on many a Nativity scene and/or Christmas tree put up by faithful Christians.

    Now let’s compare the classic Republican Party logo of old:

    Still a beast, and one not mentioned in the Bible, though the description of “behemoth” in Job sounds a lot like one. Yet behemoth is traditionally considered a demonic beast!

    Note the stars: all five-pointed, but all upside-down. Where else have we seen upside-down five-pointed stars?

    Oh, yeah:

    ♫♪ Bum-ba-dum-ba-dum | diddly-iddly-do-dah ♪♫
    ♪♫ One logo’s stars are | not like the oth-ers, ♫♪
    ♫♪ One logo’s stars just | do not be-long. ♪♫
    ♪♫ Can you | tell me which stars are | not like the oth-ers, ♫♪
    ♫♪ By the | time I fin-ish this | song? ♪♫
    (Now, granted, the upside-down stars of the Satanic Temple and Church of Satan logos are inside circles, and the ones on the classic GOP logo aren’t.)

    But those are the old, classic logos. Around 2014, both major parties underwent rebranding which included changing their logos. The Democratic Party dumped their old logo entirely and came up with an all-new one, with no beast at all:

    Just a plain bold sans-serif sky-blue “D” inside a teal-blue circle, and some slab-serif logotext in teal below that, with a slogan (which I don’t think is part of the actual logo) in red below that.

    Before I show you the new Republican Party logo (which you can verify really is their current official logo by going to their GOP·com website, calling up the Press Releases section from the footer menu, and viewing the Press Release of your choice — any of them will display the current official GOP logo right up top, nice and big), do know that many people noticed this thing about the stars being upside-down and their Satanic implications years ago, and the GOP was aware of this. Since, like the Democrats, the GOP was doing a rebranding including a new logo, they had a golden opportunity to correct this and get rid of the Satanic-seeming upside-down stars.

    So what did they do with this opportunity? They doubled down on the Satanic imagery. First, let’s read from Revelation Chapter 17:3 (KJV):

    “… I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names [or symbols?] of blasphemy,…”

    And now, the current official Republican Party logo (I’m getting this right from their site, from a Press Release page):

    Behold, a literal scarlet-coloured beast!!

    Stars still upside-down. And remember how I said that the stars weren’t inside a circle in the classic logo? They are now! Granted, it’s one circle enclosing the whole logo, but still, the stars are inside a circle, and they weren’t before. Gone is the blue, replaced by red, and not just any red, but a noticeably brighter shade of red than the U.S. flag-like red of before. There’s a word for that shade of red: scarlet!

    Also, the GOP is allied with the Alt-Right, which speaks all manner of unclean things that the right-wing politicians and Dominionist preachers themselves wouldn’t publicly say. Wait, that sounds familiar:

    And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

    — Revelation 16:3 (KJV)

    And who is the chosen mascot of the Alt-Right? Pepé the Frog!!

  • For those that think socialism is a 4 letter word, think about our roads, police, fire, schools, military, government, post office, Medicaid, etc…we all pay taxes, and the government turns around and decides what to pay for in regards to everything I listed. I don’t complain about the semis that use the roads way more than I do, or that the national guard will be sent in to help people displaced by hurricanes, or that the neighbors have called the police multiple times, or the fire dept raced to put out a fire. The government is here to do a job for the good of the people, not to pick and choose who gets tax breaks, and who should be able to afford health care, schools, and groceries. The churches do a lot for their people but not everyone goes to church, do they? Therefore, since we all pay taxes…property, income, and sales, there should be multiple ways to spread the wealth to the people, and the government could do a much better job of taking care of all it’s people, not just the wealthy.

  • I’m not a Christian, but if I was, I would be struck at how similar Trump is to the description of the antichrist in the Bible.

      • On what grounds do you make your false accusation? On the grounds that President Obama is half Black?
        That President Obama had NO scandals? Or that President Obama shows compassion, respect and decency to others?

        C’mon TOAD … enlighten us as to your reasoning for calling President Obama the ‘antichrist’ … and I’ll show your sorry
        TЯ卐mp-Humping αss what a lying hypocrite you are.

        If you still support TЯ☭itor-TЯ卐mp after all the crimes and indecency he’s committed, then you already have the Mark of the Beast in your forehead and hand. And you put it there yourself!

    • I am a Christian and I admit I had trouble believing the account of the anti-Christ; how could someone come to power with the full support of the political powers and also the full support of the religious establishment, all the while seeking only to advance his own self-serving power base and committing horrible acts against innocent people?
      It seemed implausible to me that someone so loathsome could fool so many people, but the reality of Trump’s political/religious ascension seems to fit the anti-Christ account exactly.

      • Actually, TЯ☭itor-TЯ卐mp absolutely fits the description of the Beast. (Revelation 13).
        Some of the prophesies in this chapter have not yet been fulfilled.

    • I’ve *always* said this and so has my Catholic mom!
      It’s astounding how many on the right accused Obama of being the antichrist only to turn around and vote in Trump!

    • I came from nearly 10 years inside of Evangelicalism, and I saw the rise of RW “Spirit-Filled” Christianity as basically being Creepy Voodoo from the Pits of Hell.

      There is NO love in Evangelical Christianity.
      Just … emphasis on Obedience, and on Accepting Pastoral Horseshit, even when it’s the opposite of anything Jesus ever taught.

  • Loved the article! You are right on point! The cult mentality is frightening. So, everyone’s voting, right? I am and so are my kids…even if we do live in FL…

  • Heh. I hear the not a true christian line every so often. the only comeback i have is, judge not lest you be judged. Oh wait, thats the big reason i left christianity, because most christians point fingers at other christians rather than accept and acknowledge, that something about the religion makes people act the way they do.

    • Baloney! Christ warned us to “Beware of False Prophets and Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing”. TЯ☭itor-TЯ卐mp’s own words judge him.
      We don’t need to do any judging.

      Jesus also said: “A tree is known for its fruit” and “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person”.
      – Matthew 15:18

      • Sure. Surely you can hold up when the Media, the Establishment and the opposite Party attacks everything you do and say in an unrelenting 24/7 attack on the Presidency of this country.

  • I experienced Christ as the consciousness of the Sun, during a period of several years when I was using a legal substance intermittently. I wrote an ebook about it which is free to download in pdf form, and it is also available on blogger, the links are below:

    link to my free ebook, “Messages from the Sun God, Jesus Christ”
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/riox16d87g86626/Messages_10.pdf/file

    link to the ebook on blogger: https://messagesftsg.blogspot.com/

    blog http://www.jesuschristsungod.com

            • So Christians who sin aren’t christians then?

              No

              They are followers of the Christian religion just like the murderous crusaders.
              Its like saying extremist muslims arent muslims.

              • Incorrect. Christians who repent from sin can certainly remain in good standing before God.

                Individuals who don’t lose their relationship with him for God does not tolerate those who love to do evil:

                God said, “When I say to someone wicked, ‘Wicked one, you will surely die!’ but you do not speak out to warn the wicked one to change his course, he will die as a wicked man because of his own error, but I will ask his blood back from you.

                But if you warn someone wicked to turn back from his way and he refuses to change his course, he will die for his error, but you will certainly save your own life.

                ‘“As surely as I am alive,” declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living. Turn back, turn back from your bad ways, for why should you die?” -Ezekiel 33:8, 9, 11

    • Ah yes, the hypocrisy of conservative Christians who worship an adulterous divisive arsehole of a president.

      That is no surprise at all.

    • Thanks for this video. It is a good summary of the current state of destruction politics. I and many other are praying and have prayed. That is why I believe God caused President Trump to be elected; to delay the inevitable end times destruction coming on the whole world! People are scoffing like many on this site but that does not change the march of evil hellbent on its own slaughter; a proud and evil generation is among us just as prophesied.

      • This is the same Trump who gave $110 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia…..

        God had nothing to do with trump being elected.

        The simple fact is he bs and lied his way to the presidency and his bs and lies have been found out.

        And your hypocrisy is there for all to see.,

        • It’s pathetic over here in the States how right wing Christians have sold out to Trump. A friend of mine said that Trump didn’t make these people a certain way. He merely exposed them for who they really are.

          These people primarily love Trump because to them he is the antithesis to Obama’s, a man they still hate who from all indications actually loves his wife, and doesn’t suffer from narcissistic disorder. They hate him for several reasons. (1) He is tolerant of other faiths (which to them makes him godless), (2) he’s a democrat (which to them means he is an enemy for taxing their riches to share with the poor; means he is a baby killer because he doesn’t believe in forcibly interfering in a woman’s body; means he is evil because he has the audacity to not discriminate against gays; means he wants to be a dictator because he’s going to take away all their guns lol); (3) he is black; and (4) because his name sounds like a middle easterner (which to them means he’s a Muslim, which equates to terrorism against white people).

          • If you listened to his latest campaign speech, I heard that Obama referred to himself 180 times with the word I. That’s a pretty good indicator of his narcissism. But then many politicians are narcissists. All believers in abortion and those who claim it is somehow a women’s right are deceived. Who would support killing children while screaming about the Rights of Illegals except an irrational person? Mostly he is hated for hating America who gave him the awesome opportunities he has had. I detest the fact that he tried to start the current Race War in this country first with Henry Gates then with Trayvon Martin all the while ignoring the black on black murders in Chicago and the other Democrat controlled major cities. Obama had the opportunity of a lifetime to Lead this Country out of Race Issues but wasted his opportunity dreaming of Big Government with fiascoes like Obamacare, Carbon Tax, non-fossil fuel power like solar and wind.

          • If Obama ran against Trump, Obama would win a third term.

            That’s why Trump never ran against Obama.

            Trump won because the other candidate was not a good candidate. And he was able to tap into the populist dislike of the Clintons.FFS he had 3 different policies on abortion in one day.

            It will be interesting to see if Dems come out in the mid terms. OVer 30 seats have been flipped by the Democrats since Trump won and some of those were in counties that Trump won.

            I think Trump’s worried hence the idiotic video.

            And the less said about the White House the better.

    • If one hundred of the country’s most respected psychiatrists presented me with affidavits stating they had examined you and found you to be insane, it would no more convince me of your insanity than your video clip does.

  • Ben the author – like so many liberals – simply fails, completely and totally, to understand how and why Trump was elected President.

    Trump wasn’t really elected President. Hillary was denied. That’s it in a nutshell. The hatred for Hillary’s decades of corruption was so visceral that people decided that she was even less appealing than Trump – and that’s saying something.

    Learn your lesson, or Trump will be elected to another 4-year term.

    • Is there any actual evidence in support of corruption on Hillary’s part?

      How does it stack up against evidence in support of Trump’s corruption?

        • That’s a cheap excuse for not providing any at all.

          You could bring up the emails… of which there’s been much investigation and no corruption found.

          You could bring up Benghazi. See above.

          You could bring up Whitewater. See above.

          You could bring up a conspiracy of satanic pedophiles who operate out of the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn’t actually ahve a basement.

          The “corruption” of Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a decades long smear campaign. First, it was a means of getting at her husband. Then, it was just easy. Then, it was to discredit her service in political positions. It isn’t real. It was just something conservatives believed because they wanted to believe something bad about Democrats.

          Trump, on the other hand, has evidenced corruption in Trump University, in the Trump Foundation that mainly uses other people’s money for his own benefit, has ties to Russian mafia, etc.

    • I agree with your opening completely. I also agree that Hillary’s baggage hurt her but she also lacked the charisma needed to win. But I would argue that Trump had a How else do you explain Pennsylvania and Florida and Michigan?

    • Why Trump was elected is not the subject of the article. There are countless discussions on that matter elsewhere. I suspect I know why you feel so compelled to ignore the author’s points and try to change the subject.

      • It’s simple, Matty. This ridiculous article is nothing more than a crying sobbing attempt to make Christians who voted for Trump look like villains. So yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with why Trump was elected.

        It’s bandwagoning at its finest/lowest.

        • VolvoDriver – it is hardly bandwagon jumping – me thinks you don’t know what that means. This is simply an argument, made up of 10 separate points, that states that it is hypocritical of a Christian who was vocal, for example, about Obama and/or Clinton to then be supportive of Trump. In most points legitimate or otherwise that Christians have used to attack POTUS 42 or 44, Trump is easily demonstrable to be much much, worse. You are simply ignoring the argument and resorting to irrational name calling. In effect you are saying “to heck with facts or logical arguments, I love Trump and hate Hillary/Obama/progressives/whatever”. And that, as an argument or a rebuttal is worthless. Why was Trump elected? In part because the DNC turned off many of its members by shafting Sanders, in part because Hillary is very uncharismatic and in part because Trump knows how to sell and how to appeal to people’s lower instincts such as inherent racism. Add to that poor targeting by the DNC and a couple of stupid gaffes by Hillary and there you have it.

        • Everything, eh? I believe a big part of the reason Trump got elected, VD, is that so many Americans think “It’s simple” way too often on way too many issues. Their intellectual laziness prevents them from doing otherwise.

          This article is about glaring hypocrisy on a head-slapping level. It’s not directed at all Christian Trump voters. It’s directed at all fundamental, born-again, Bible-believing Christian members of Trump’s base–and more particularly, the ones the writer knows personally and any who would defend those in the examples he gives.

          • I don’t disagree – except to note that the overwhelming majority of these “hypocritical” evangelical voters simply chose what they believed to be the lesser of two evils.

            I just talked to one the other day. My 83-year old father. He voted for Trump because Trump isn’t Hillary. And he has nothing good to say about Trump the man, but is actually rather pleased by what Trump the President is doing.

  • The shoe fits as well on the other foot. These ten items are more a test of partisanship than Christianity. Obama was as divisive, and people who “worshiped” him still don’t see his lies as lies. Same with Trump, those who are enamored see his lies as mere details, or as deliberate sleight of tongue, or in other ways excusable. I have stopped fretting about what politicians say and focus on what they do. Trump has addressed the March for Life, has obtained some concessions from North Korea that were actually delivered on (the remains), and then there is the economy. And the freedom from government tyranny of forcing you to buy insurance of the government’s choosing (they gave three options only!).

    • How was Obama “divisive”? OK to serve in the military while openly gay? Supporting Pro-Choice? Supporting Marriage Equality? Essentially supporting equal rights for “the other”? Please explain. Use your words.

      • I might as well ask how is Trump divisive? What has he done or said that favors one group over another? Americans were divided over Obama and they are divided over Trump, that is why I say Trump is as divisive as Obama.

        • “What has he done or said that favors one group over another?”

          “Mexico isn’t sending their best people….”

          “Sh*thole countries.”

          The Muslim ban.

          “Good people on both sides” (which although it might sound neutral in one way gives credence to Nazis. Actual, torch bearing anti-Semitic epithet chanting Nazis.)

          The gargantuan tax cuts that most people won’t see more than $100 or $200 from compared to the super-rich.

          Child separations for immigrants.

          Shall I continue?

        • Well, Trump is, right now, denying passports to US citizens on the basis of race and geography. That’s dividing America. He calls the accurate death-toll of the storm in Puerto Rico a lie by Democrats to make him look bad. That’s divisive.

          Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly reached across the isle. Heck, he nearly begged the Republicans to come to the table to discuss Healthcare reform, they refused, then they demanded a televised discussion, then, when he gave them just that, they called it a trap.

          So, actually answer the question. How has Obama been divisive? What has he done *other* than be a Democrat?

          • He was black. That’s literally being divisive to Republicans, because they don’t understand what divisive means, and aren’t willing to accept their own deep seeded racism.

          • WingedBeast: Thats a rather one sided view of recent history. You are assuming the |Democrat number on PR is accurate, what if it isn’t? Then who would be seeking to cause trouble and be divisive? As for partisanship in the government, doesn’t that just show how divisive everything is? Trump’s tax cuts also got NO democrat support in the senate, so does that make Trump divisive or the democrats divisive? AS for Obama and the ACA, what makes the ACA divisive are the following: 1) The USA is supposed to have a federal govt, not a central govt. The ACA was a central govt action, dictating to the various states what they would do. 2) The govt does not have the right to compel a purchase of any good or service, 3) the ACA didn’t deliver health care, it delivered captive clients to the insurance industry 4) the legal chicanery involved to pass it–now it’s a tax, now it’s not and 5) The out right and obvious lie about getting more health care for less money. That last one was an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Then there was Obama himself, so nicely personifying the integration of America as a human body with equal contributions from the Negro and Caucasian gene pools. I think nearly everyone had hope he truly was the post racial president. However, he consistently took the side of one of his racial identities and that is what became divisive. To be fair to Obama, the media was the wind to his flame, making things much worse. Remember the Trayvon Martin case? The media at first had the gunman as “white” , then white-hispanic. It certainly became murky, but the initial response from the WH was to assume Trayvon was just an innocent kid gunned down by a white racist. So after a time that part of America that is bot white and non racist got tires of being falsely accused. At least that is my opinion.

            • First, a side note. Please, in future, include paragraph breaks. It’s just needed for readability.

              But, let’s go over the details.

              1. Basically, you’re saying that, assuming the larger death toll *is* a conspiracy against Trump, Trump assuming it a conspiracy wouldn’t be divisive… that’s a pretty big assumption considering that this was done by an independent organization and Puerto Rico has accepted it as official.

              2. The ACA is divisive because… you disagree with it? Wow, that would have been a good reason for Republicans to come to the table and negotiate earlier, huh?

              3. You’d have to go into “taking his side”. Do you mean when he said that, had he had a son, that son would have looked like Trayvon Martin?

              And, does none of the obligation to be post-racial fall upon conservatives who accused him of being born in another country, who accused him of having falsified college transcript, etc?

              Basically, I see you saying that Obama was divisive for not sharing *your* position on things. Whereas we can call Trump divisive for literally dividing out people as dangerous, less American, etc.

        • Well, let’s see…he’s divisive in that he believes it’s okay to grab women by the P, by his ignorance of the plight of brown people in Puerto Rico after their island was devastated by a hurricane, he calls violent white supremacist Nazis “fine people,” he surgically targets Hispanic persons (with or without papers) on whose labor this economy depends intensely, he encourages the funneling of money into the pockets of his billionaire cronies and corporations instead of into the pockets of the middle and lower classes, and he expresses himself with the vocabulary and spelling of a struggling fourth grader who also has the temperament of a four year old. That divisive enough for you?

          • I think its on you to prove your allegations about surgically targeting any particular group or funneling money to his cronies. One way Trump has been divisive is to seek better relations with Russia and North Korea while the war hawks press for more bellicosity because they benefit financially from a constant war economy. But peace and love are still Christian values, aren’t they?

            • Does the fact of small children in concentration camps not count as targeting a particular group to you? How about a Muslim ban?

              And, he didn’t “seek better relations with Russia”. He sided with Russia against American intelligence organizations.

            • Barrashee is hilarious. Multiple novel sized posts about him defending frumpelstilskin. Poor guy. Doesn’t even know it’s a fruitless endeavor. 😂🤣

        • People being divided over a thing doesn’t mean the thing is divisive. The people are divisive, choosing to oppose one another. Take some basic responsibility for your own feelings and actions.

          To answer your original question, I defer to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who outlines a detailed answer here:

          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/american-democracy-is-in-crisis/570394/

          You are welcome to examine her words and formulate an intelligent rebuttal if you are at all capable.

        • So…you can’t actually say how Obama was divisive. You can only deflect when called on having said so.

    • The neutrality of the early Christians in relation to the political and military affairs of the world is an established fact of history. It was in harmony with Jesus’ refusal to be made a king by the crowds (John 6:15) and with his statement to Pilate that his kingdom was no part of the world. (John 18:36)

      Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (CX): “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons, – our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” (The Ante-Nicene Father, Vol. I. p. 254)

      This certainly does not signify that Christians just kick back and do nothing at all about mankind’s dilemmas. Quite the opposite, they energetically proclaim the one government which will eliminate mankind’s problems—God’s Kingdom.—Matthew 24:14.

    • He saluted a ruthless dictator as the leader of the free world, he may have addressed the March for Life, but has no regard for the lives of immigrant children, and his cronies are making a tidy profit warehousing them in tent cities, healthcare for profit can raise the price of life saving medication at whim, and I would certainly wonder about the magical thinking that lets you believe he personally turned the economy around in a year. His tax cuts for the wealthy have given us the biggest deficit, ever, he is opening up public lands, our lands, to mining and drilling, stripping protections for clean air, water, the food supply, sourcing out for profit government functions all in the name of greed. So, just own the fact you voted for Trump as a big feck you to liberals, Hilary, Obama, gay marriage, legal abortion, immigration, big government, etc, whatever pet peave you blame for the downfall of Christian America ™. Hope it was satisfying. Just don’t cloak it in righteousness and say it’s because you are a disciple of Christ, it’s unbecoming. For these are the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. He’s really demonstrating those qualities. And this is the man you think is going to save us? God help us. Sincerely.

      • I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary, but if I had voted I would choose Trump over Hillary. As you say, the other option was more of the same from Clintons and progressives. Clintons will say and sell anything for their own benefit, progressives will use force of law to remake the world to suit their imagination. Trump is definitely less abusive. So my theoretical vote is based on self preservation.

        • And Trump doesn’t use force of law….

          That’s why kids are being detained…..

          Trump will tell you any bs to get your vote.

          • Please think before spouting. ALL GOVERNMENT USES FORCE OF LAW, thats their explicit function or justification for action. And Trump has been enforcing the same laws regarding separation of minors from people who may or may not be their parents as the past two administrations did. Because the president doesn’t write or create laws, the president merely enforces the laws passed by congress. It’s people who make such blanket and grandiose denunciations of Trump that force more reasonable people to support him, just to push back against inane statements such as yours.

              • Sorry no, family separation happened in the Garden, when pride (serpant) separated the male and female union.
                A child’s first teachers are the parents. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

                • Chari, thank you for expressing your dishonesty with efficiency. I can now be sure that any interest in accurate communication is not to be found with you.

            • You said, “progressives will use force of law to remake the world to suit their imagination”, then refute someone else for pointing out that Trump used force of law when he detained immigrants.
              Doesn’t that reveal that your original statement is inherently biased against progressives? Or do you have some other explanation for tying ‘force of law’ solely to one group? Because BOTH are remaking the world to suit their imagination.

            • So in other words Trump is no different…..

              And Obama enacted legislation to protect Dreamers something Trump wants to get rid of and use the law to attack children.

    • Sounds more like you merely focus on what Trump does that matches your agenda, and on what Obama did that does not.

      I’m sorry–but not surprised–to see you try to simply shoo away the points made in the article with an illogical response. Typical.

    • When he said “you don’t have to give up your plan” and “you can still see the same doctor” and then the health insurance companies pulled the rug out from under him (and I still can’t understand that, he literally saved their market with the ACA), HE APOLOGIZED that his words turned out false and was sorry he said them. I can’t recall Trump ever being sorry for anything.

      Obama wasn’t divisive. You were divisive. Couldn’t stand it that a black man could be elected President *and* do a good job. Considering how hard the GOP opposed him and fought everything he did, he accomplished quite a lot.

      • To whom do you refer as “you were divisive” ? Then there is this: “People being divided over a thing doesn’t mean the thing is divisive. The people are divisive, choosing to oppose one another” Do the people choose to oppose each other or do they have conflicting values and desire different choices which lead to conflict when people with conflicting values have to share in one choice or the other? The second option seems more reasonable than to think vast swaths of the population are given to opposition for opposition’s sake. As for me personally, I has encouraged when Obama was elected, thinking he would indeed be the post racial president even though I knew I disagreed with his basic understanding of the role of politics. Then he became disappointing in the only thing I had thought he would succeed at.

  • Almost nailed it, but couldn’t help stumbling over classical liberal logical fallacies with number 5. There is no sensible context in which bowing to a statue and standing for a flag are comparable. Great job on the rest of them though! Especially #1, 2 and 10- so true! Being a conservative in the Republican party is a lonely place these days. Although, with each passing scandal, I have to say I find more and more company.

    • Four was a bigger problem than 5. 5 is pretty valid, though probably the second weakest, but four is outright wrong as Christianity says the church should do those things. It says nothing about the government doing it. Not that the government couldn’t do it, but there isn’t any mandate about the government doing it in Christianity.

        • That is a logical falicy. I do think people should go to the hospital and I believe they should also pray for healing. That does not mean I believe hospitals are a scriptural mandate nor do I believe that their existence means we shouldn’t make use of them.

          Personally I do think so government assistance if safety net is fine. That doesn’t mean that one must support something which is not scripturally mandated to be a Christan.

          We may both think someone who only uses faith healing rather than a hospital is an idiot, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t Christian or a bad one. They are just foolishly (in our view anyway) declining to exercise the personal liberty that they are allowed by Christianity to also make use of the tools provided to us.

          • Actually it is mandated that christians heal the sick and Jesus said nothing about the state providing hospitals.

            So this idea that the government isnt to help poor people is a complete fallacy when it helps the sick.

            The government represents the wishes of the people in a democracy. And the vast majority want to see poor people with some sort of living wage to help them survive. Many of these ARE Christians. (Although some don’t apparently)

            Its either that or they’ll be robbing your house or dying on the street and picking food out of garbage tips.

            It is weird that christians would rather their taxes be spent on bombs than on their fellow humans.

            • Look at the edited version of my post please. It appears most of this discussion has been taking past each other on a misunderstanding. The context of my original comment was this article which talked about Christian responsibility. The Christian mandate is that Christians provide for the poor and needy. It says nothing of government. My point was that government providing care does not fulfill the religious mandate and that Christians can oppose particular government programs without being in opposition to Christian values.

              It was not my intent or my personal belief that the government should not be involved at all, nor was it my intent to say Christian values dictate the government have no involvement, just that government provision is irrelevant and tangential to the expectation on Christians. Hope that help clears up the confusion.

              • What misunderstanding is that?
                Its apparent in your reply to Corey that you dont think a nation should care for the poor.

                • You are going to have to clarify which response you are talking about. I see no response in my message history to anyone named Corey. It’s also a bit presumptuous to simply ignore a clarification and continue to tell someone what they meant when they have consistently clarified multiple times. If you want to argue a straw man rather than engage in a discussion I have better things to do with my time. Every response I’ve made to anyone who said that I was dictating what government should do, I have emphatically indicated that is not what I’m saying.

          • So, it seems to be your consideration that the US government, the one with a constitution forbidding the government establishing a religion, should be bound by *your* thoughts on what God wanted Christians to do instead of the government?

            • No, and I’m not sure where you got that from my posts at all. My point is that the government can not and should not be an alternative for Christian’s mandate to care for the poor and needy. I’m just going to assume you have drastically misunderstood me. (Note I also don’t oppose secular help programs, but I think that political opposition to far reaching programs that try to supplant the need for Christian’s to take on these needs is not sign that someone isn’t behaving in a Christian manner.)

              • If your point is that the government shouldn’t be an alternative for a Christian’s mandate to care for the poor and needy, nothing stops you from doing so. The fact that the government is doing a much better job of that at base than private charities have been able to do ever doesn’t stop you from also caring for the poor.

                If that were really your concern, you wouldn’t be arguing against social welfare programs. When the topic of social welfare programs comes up, you would be supportive to the extent that they are effective and arguing that, as Christians, you’re supposed to still go helping even if, thanks to progressive programs and policies, there are relatively fewer people starving and homeless.

                If, on the other hand, your main concern isn’t for the poor, but for yourself and your version of Christianity owning care for the poor, sure, you can argue that this muscles in on your religion’s domain.

                • I’m not personally arguing against social welfare programs. I’m arguing that someone can oppose social welfare programs that they don’t think are helpful for whatever reason. Are some people’s objections to them unchristian? Certainly, but that does not mean that someone can not be living consistent with Christian values and also have problems with just about any particular government assistance program.

                  You still don’t seem to quite get what I was trying to say. I’m not saying it must only be Christians or that government shouldn’t do anything. All I am saying is that it is perfectly possible for someone to oppose current government programs in their current form without violating Christian principles to care for the poor and needy.

                  Such programs are a particular solution that is very much in the domain of politics rather than morality. There are multiple ways to skin a cat as the saying goes. Disagreeing on the approach doesn’t mean that people disagree with the values.

            • I think perhaps you responded to the wrong person. I said that Christian’s wanting to help the poor and needy does not mean they need to support a particular brand of government enforced welfare. Someone else made a completely different statement about whether we should do anything other than what Christianity suggests. The article claims “you aren’t Christian if you don’t support x”. The person I’m responded to said “do you think you can’t do Y if you are a Christian”. I never said you couldn’t be a Christian and support current government programs. That isn’t moving the goal post, the person I responded to moved them.

    • Not sure what credentials you think you have to make statements like, “Almost nailed it, but couldn’t help stumbling over classical liberal logical fallacies.”

      It sounds really silly and narcissistic. It sounds almost Trumpian except that he’s too stupid to even understand the statement.

      Thanks now. Good luck.

      • What’s truly narcissistic is to believe that someone needs “credentials” to have an opinion and that somehow your “credentials” permit you to have an opinion but not someone else. THAT is Trumpian. The only credential I am concerned about is critical thought. You have every right to disregard it, but your elitism in doing so is obvious.

    • State the difference.

      In one case, there’s a demand with known penalties for showing deference to a symbol, humiliating oneself before the symbol and accepting 2nd class citizenship at best. In the other case…?

      • If the difference between bowing in submission to the state and standing to honor the principles of liberty for all is not obvious to you, then no amount of explanation or debate will bring you to that understanding.

            • Actually, we’re seeing practical demonstration that it is. Listen, if it was really about standing for liberty, there would be the liberty to not do so, to not share your vision of what the flag is. In practice, being that there are such penalties applied for not doing so, yes, standing for the flag can be an act of submission.

              And, symbology doesn’t work that way. You say that it represents liberty to you, but see above regarding the practical demonstration. It means something different to Kapaernick, and saying that he must act as though it only means liberty to him means that you’re saying he should submit.

        • It’s easy to claim that bowing in submission before an idol is standing in honor to the principles of liberty for all. But, you’re not exactly supportive of the liberty of a person who doesn’t stand, because the country for which the flag stands *isn’t* providing liberty for all.

          • It’s easy to claim it, but it’s still wrong. It is pretty telling that you take your uninformed assumption about my support of someone’s liberty seriously enough to state publicly. Of course the country for which the flag stands isn’t perfect in it’s execution of it’s ideals, because it is humans trying to work out the execution, but it IS the ideal.

            • No, you’re stating your own level of support for someone else’s liberty. Including their liberty to view the flag and the act of standing rather than kneeling for the flag in a different way from yourself. That speaks to the value you actually place on liberty.

              • Your assumptions betray your ability to reason. I am not the one who set the condition of kneeling as dishonoring the flag and the liberty for which it stands. The one’s who are protesting did. I’m simply responding to statements by Kaepernick and other protestors. You assumed that I equate kneeling with dishonoring the flag. I did not, the protesters did.

    • Actually the Electoral College was set up to give Rural America more power than the populated cities!

    • Sorry… no she didn’t, and she didn’t even think she did.
      Popular vote is NOT winning an election, it’s merely winning the most populous districts in the most populous regions – the East and West Coast. If you think there is no other part of America, then that’s your problem.
      Note: I say this and I did NOT support Trump, but I’m a pragmatist. HRC didn’t win.

      • She did win the popular and that should be all that counts. If we can get rid of the Electoral College, it will count. I’m tired of people in rural areas telling people in urban areas what to do. I’ll tell you what you tell poor people in hurricane zones after they’ve had their homes wiped out AGAIN with no help on the horizon: Just move. If you want more influence, move. Rural areas are the actual s**thole places anymore anyway, you don’t take care of one another and you do nothing about your poverty despite sucking up most of the tax dollars that urban areas and blue states are paying. I didn’t make this up. I’ve personally seen it. And then you have the unmitigated gall to say you’re more holy than urban people are. HOW far do you have to drive to find the nearest food pantry? I can jump on a bus and be to my nearest one in fifteen minutes.

        • So, you would rather the urban areas dictate how rural voters live? How is that any better?
          First of all, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I’m uneducated, backward, or conservative for that matter, just because I grew up in rural middle America. I actually voted for Hillary (actually more against Trump, but hey…).
          And where in my statement did I say that I was ‘more holy than urban people’? Look again… you won’t find it. You’re completely off base, and using flawed, overinflated arguments and assumptions is what the other side is supposed to do, not you if you consider yourself an educated liberal, so get your act together.

          As for your s**hole remark, combined with your assumption that ‘you don’t take care of one another and you do nothing about your poverty’ statement, just proves your uneducated or inexperienced biases. You say you’ve personally seen it, I challenge that remark, because I LIVE here and I’m not wearing any rose colored glasses, unlike you. I know the flaws and shortcomings of a red leaning middle America, but it has NOTHING to do with not caring for each other of coming to your neighbors aid.

          I have nothing against folks like you that think the world revolves around coastal urban centers, but maybe you should get out more. I’ve visited and spent time, even lived briefly where you are. At a very human level, people aren’t so different. Maybe it’s time you realized that.

          But to the REAL point here… the electoral college is what makes our society a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (or Republic, the two are synonymous). Without it, raw majority wins and a ‘bully mentality’ takes over. If you think things are bad now, just imagine what it would be like to live in a society where your voice doesn’t matter at all. You can’t say that here in America, not without sounding like an idiot. We have always had cycles where one party, or one political leaning, held sway over the direction our country was headed, but like a compass, our society is drawn, sometimes in herky-jerky fashion, toward a middle ground. Few are ever happy or satisfied with the result, but ours is a system that ensures that the bully doesn’t always win, the bullied still has a voice and a measure of justice, and the majority today MIGHT be the minority tomorrow, and both sides STILL get a voice.

  • Biblical Christianity knows no political party, because the only government that matters is the one that has no parties because Jesus is king. Whatever party we vote for and our status within the Constitution are merely tools to use should they prove useful in advancing God’s kingdom and its policies, and nothing more.

  • I agree with all but four. Christianity says the church should do those things, it doesn’t say anything about government. And there are a great many good reasons why the government doing it isn’t a great idea (at least in some of the current approaches). The rest are 100 percent spot on though. It makes me sad to see four detract from the unquestionable validity of the rest of it.

    • Been over this a million times.

      The Church WON’T do it and the only infrastructure to care for millions of the poor, the elderly, the sick is provided by the government.

      • Then that is a lack of faith in scriptural teaching. The church did do it for quite a long time actually. I guess the good news of having the government try to do it all is that we will crash ourselves and get back to a spot where the church actually has to again. The government has always and will always fail to provide for people in a Christian appropriate manor. They have always failed outright, resulted in a system focused on dependence and propogating itself, or a system that stops valuing the individual and instead sacrifices some for the rest.

        We may not have seen the church pick things up on the scale of current population but that’s a sign the church is unwell, not an argument that we need the government to do it. The government has a far worse track record when it comes to using resources effectively to provide the type of care described by the Bible.

        • I’m not a Christian. I don’t want the government caring for me in a Christian manner. If you want the church to help people in a Christian manner, tell all your churches to care for their own. I’d be fine with that. I’m not fine with you coming out here to us with food in one hand and a Bible in the other. That is unbelievably cruel.

          Which was pretty much your status quo before the New Deal and actually for a long time afterward when a service was needed that the government didn’t provide. You always made us sorry we needed your help.

          I also don’t recall the Bible outlining anything specific about care for the poor other than providing food and medical care and guess what? The government does both, and it’d be doing them better if you “Christians” didn’t keep cutting its funding.

          • Read some of my other posts. My point is not whether or not there is a reasonable argument for government provided services. It is whether Christian’s have an inherent RELIGIOUS MANDATE to provide government sponsored care. They do not. The rest of the discussion is politics and I’m honestly more in agreement with you than you think, but I still call out bad arguments when I see them, even if I empathize with what they are getting at.

            • So, you’re saying that a Christian who has the power to influence whether or not the poor are tended, and the power is over the tool that is government welfare programs, the Christian has no mandate to use that power to help the poor?

          • ‘The government does both, and it’d be doing them better if you “Christians” didn’t keep cutting its funding.’

            hoofkinrah!

        • 1. “Christian appropriate” is not and cannot be the important thing to the US government. It has to be more concerned with feeding people than making sure said people become Christians.

          2. “Christian appropriate” outside of “make sure to proselytize to those you’re (allegedly) helping” doesn’t have any definition, at all.

          3. The reason we started the New Deal, including welfare programs, was because the church did not and could not do it. They didn’t have the infrastructure.

          4. The type of care described in the Bible includes, in the Old Testament, the government enforcing laws and programs to care for the poor.

          • I’ll just respond point by point as that’s probably easier.

            1) see my other response, I agree with you whole heartedly on this one.
            2)the definition is to provide the aid. It is a call for the church and Christian’s to meet the need, not abdicate it to someone else.
            3)They did not do it, it doesn’t mean they could not do it. The church isn’t perfect either, but that doesn’t mean that Christians can simply abdicate their responsibility. I’m also not opposing all government programs. If there aren’t enough resources to go around, economic stimulus is something I think the government can and should do in order to get enough resources back in the system.
            4)The old testament is by and large an object lesson in the fact that human institutions can’t fix things. They had the entire deck stacked, even to the point of harming others to stack it, but yet still couldn’t do it. That’s pretty much the entire point of the old testament and the old covenant. It was never intended as a means of salvation, but a means of showing we need salvation. Note, this does also mean that I don’t think the church will ever fully address societal needs in this life, nor do I think government will.

            We are talking about responsibility since that determines where someone should put their effort. From a Christian perspective, no amount of government intervention will ever abdicate our responsibility, so it becomes a question of effectiveness of government programs in helping people and there is reasonable room for debate and refinement. My point is not to argue that the government can’t be helpful, but rather that having objections to government programs that one believes are flawed is not inherently unchristian. That’s in to political rather than religious territory, and as you said, those two are separate things.

            • I’m not willing to wait until the church gets its act together to give up on government aid. I’m not willing to give up on it even after the church gets its act together which you and I know will never happen anyway. I want options that are not the church. You have no right to take everything over and demand that we follow your religious law. Take care of your own. That would actually be a help to government resources because the government doesn’t automatically help, you have to ask them and if the church TOOK CARE OF ITS OWN, not even everyone else, those cared-for people wouldn’t have to apply for aid.

            • 1. You’ll have to give a better definition than you do.

              2. If the definition is to just provide the aid, historically speaking, government *has* done that better than the church.

              3. Ah, here’s where we’re getting into the rub. You think that this is an alternative to Christians helping people. No, it’s helping people. The fact that you think that should be owned by Christians doesn’t mean it doesn’t actually help people.

              4. That’s your particular reading of the Old Testament.

              And, no, we’re not talking about responsibility. We’re talking about getting people fed, housed, educated, etc. That’s what we’re talking about. The fact of the matter is that, prior to the New Deal, churches weren’t doing that (whether you argue it was about capacity or will is secondary, they weren’t). When welfare was pulled back, churches did not take up the full slack. Therefore, using the tool of government towards that end is the most effective means.

              • We are talking about responsibility in the context of the original post. We are talking about whether a Christian can oppose unlimited build out of government sponsored welfare, and ultimately if a Christian can be anything other than a fully bought in, die hard socialist. The Christian mandate is to help the poor and needy. It is not to make the government do it. Having the government do it is not inconsistent with Christian principles either (and personally I think some forms of government help are a good thing). However, to say that someone is not behaving in a Christian manner because they disagree with government help programs is not evidence that they are not actually a Christian. That is the beginning and end of my original point. I’m not trying to get in to a debate on what is or isn’t good for government to do as that is an entirely different and much more complex discussion.

            • It’s taken 2000 years for the church to get its shit together and nothing looks like improving soon.

              In fact it’s getting worse.

              How much longer do you want?

              How many people have to die waiting for churches to become hospitals?

              Btw what has the church done about the disabled?

              SFA….

        • Dont be ridiculous.

          The government in a democracy represents the will of the people.

          And that includes many many people including Christians who want to see the poor helped so they arent living on the street and offering their kids up to prostitution. Go to some parts of the world and see how countries with no or limited welfare are. Children picking food out of rubbish tips. Children being forced to become prostitutes. And the people who vote also want the sick to get access to the best treatment.

          The church has neither the infrastructure, finance, capacity nor will to support millions of the poor, the sick, the elderly and veterans.

          The government does a far better job than churches do. Perfect – of course not. But far better than churches did. Otherwise their would be no need for government services in the first place. And it represents a wider group than just christians even if some christians are too stingy to care for their fellow human.

          You are living in a libertarian fantasy.

          I’m wondering at what stage did Jesus blame the poor for being lazy bastards.

  • Great listing here as cataloged all together for quick referral, as I know from first-hand experience the baseless reasons the Christian right has given in justifying their Trump vote, in which includes these from this article…but might I add just a couple more…

    Hillary Clinton “lies too much”: When asked to give a pertinent Hillary lie, without bringing up the Republican conspiracies against her, like Vince Foster, Ben Benghazi or Uranium One, they cannot come up with one concrete lie of hers and yet they voted for a known liar that has already tallied up over 5,000 lies since his less than two years time in office…

    Hillary Clinton “can’t be trusted.” Yeah right; a woman who has dedicated her whole life to children causes ever since she was 17, even is the originator of CHIPS which is way above the trust level of a narcissistic misogynist that was accused by Katie Johnson in raping her when she was only 13-yrs-old. With a witness she filed a lawsuit, but had to drop it during the 2016 campaign since the FBI could not guarantee her safety due to all the death threats she was receiving.

  • We were very lucky God stopped at 10 Commandments, because the 11th might have been “Thou Shall not be a Hypocrite”. The historical facts of Christ are, he was a Socialist, the first Community the disciples set up after the Crucifixion was called The Way, they pooled their money together, and distributed it by need not by how it was earned. He was a Pacifist, when John the Baptist was capture he never created an army to rescue him, likewise the Jew were expecting a Messiah that would create a great army who would lead them to victory. just the opposite of what Christ was. And we all know Christ quote “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword”. But Christ was also the biggest Liberal to change the world. He taught something NEW, he ask us to THINK, all of a sudden the poor where elevated above the rich,the cast struct the rich and powerful controlled was threaten. What you had on earth was no longer a marker of GOD favor for you, those liberal teachings made Christ a threat and cost him his life. What should be understood is that even though there is not an 11th Commandment, Christ did you the word Hypocrite 31 times, that should cause some pause.

    • Before the whining there was scientific evidence that the Nazarene actually was more a guerrilla fighter,and noble of a competing bloodline (so all the poor arise was bullshit for the masses anyway). I witnessed professors being threatened for discovering facts at university, and I doubt anyone but “God” really knows it all. How many Israeli, fake or real, will downvote this, if I write ‘I love Christmas’? 😉

    • While your statements sound good – you do realize that you are bringing Jesus into today’s language and culture. It might be better to state “Jesus lived and taught counter to the culture of the day.” rather than to label Him in today’s vernacular.
      Additionally, NOTHING Jesus did “cost Him His life.” Jesus laid His life down as a sacrifice for many so that through His shed blood we could experience spiritual life. Jesus did not come to change the culture, to validate socialism, to redistribute wealth or to command us to be pacifists. Jesus came so that we could have life in Him.
      Thank you for your thoughts.

      • The Synoptic Gospels all agree that the leaders of the Temple began seriously conspiring to have Jesus killed after the cleansing of the Temple. It was at that point that he went from merely criticizing the system to actually taking action against it. And, then as now, when the people go from talking to acting, the powers that be are prompted to counteract the resistance.

        The natural tendency is to respond “that was different!” Consider though that the money changers were performing a service that was not only legally permitted, but necessary given the working of the Temple and the context in which it operated. By turning over their tables, Jesus was committing acts which would today, get him arrested for vandalism, assault and possibly assault battery.

        • That is absolutely true! That was the point I was attempting to make. Apparently, I was not clear. Thanks, Tim.

  • “Sadly, my old tribe seems to collectively struggle to realize they’ve done exactly what they spent the entire Left Behind series warning me not to do: they have fallen in line behind a worldly leader who arose to power during a time of “wars and rumors of wars,” who did so by falsely pretending to be a Christian, but who would ultimately lead them to follow an entirely new religion.”

    This. This is the great irony; that the very people who are supposed to know better are doing exactly what they warned me about.
    It turns out that the people who have warned us and continue to warn us about “the antichrist” and “one world government” are actually the problem, not the EU or the UN or anything else they’ve tried to point their fingers at over the years; it’s THEM.

    • Exact same thing could be said of the Obama whorshipers; their messiah. Remember he said the oceans would quit rising and he was the one you were waiting for… talk about a doped is egomaniac.

      • Remember he said the oceans would quit rising and he was the one you were waiting for.

        – Source please or admit that you are lying

      • I don’t remember him saying anything like that. And the example of Obama in general is less endemic to the kind of crap that you find in “Christianity” than Trump is.

      • You have not a single shred of truth; or any evidence of your false accusations. You didn’t even provide a credible source to prove you claim that President Obama ever said or did any of the things you vile TЯ☭itor-TЯ卐mp’s MAGAts claim.

        Furthermore TOAD … white-supremacist, neo-nazi, or conspiracy-theory web sites don’t count as credible sources.

  • Yep.

    I was raised by evangelical Christians, and also, since I’m intelligent, paid attention, and understood the Bible I was reading, was astounded as I grew up to discover how much hypocrisy was rampant among Christians.

    This didn’t begin with Trumpolini, of course. Look back to the Teaparty, or the Christian Right in the 80’s. The same nonsense, irrational contradictions, utter inability, apparently, to understand their own religion.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So simple. Everything would function great. We wouldn’t even need to have all these political arguments. But noooooooooooo instead we have a Christianity in this country which is just the imperial cult it was designed to be by Constantine.

    Is there a Jesus in there somewhere? I can’t find him.

  • mr. corey, i am a born-again christian, and i understand your frustration with those believers who uncritically accept the bad with the good from mr. trump. that is no reason, however, to castigate all who voted for mr. trump as idiots; furthermore, striking out is hardly the well-considered response of a christian. rather than striking back, i choose to explain my motives for supporting mr. trump to U. i hope that U understand that i am upset with U, but that i lift U up in prayer nonetheless, because U, too, are a child of God. please don’t take my response as a rock thrown at U (even though i suspect that U will). i also realize that this is just one more rock in a heap of 1500 other rocks, but here goes anyway:

    10 – i spent 8 years criticizing mr. obama, and i have spent the years since criticizing mr. trump. please keep in mind that not everybody voted for him in the republican primaries, and not everybody who didn’t vote for ms. clinton voted for mr. trump in the general election. i *did* vote for mr. trump in the general election, but i would have voted for a tree stump if i thought that it would prevent ms. clinton from becoming president; mine was a vote *against* ms. clinton. ms. clinton took kickbacks when she and her husband were in the governor’s mansion in AR (she “earned” $100 000 on the futures market in about 8 weeks with no previous experience; that market is a zero-sum game, with loser money going to winners), treated classified data as if it were personal property, deleted “personal” data mixed with classified data without the oversight or approval of the state department or other classifying agencies (had i done that when i had a secret clearance, termination would have been immediate, and federal charges might have been lodged against me), and on and on. worst of all, she is an alinskyite leftist. saul alinsky devoted an entire chapter of his book “rules for radicals” to arguing that the end justifies the means, which casts ms. clinton’s actions into doubt all by itself. mr. trump is egotistical, non-christian (“i have nothing to be forgiven for”), inarticulate, and uneducated about the world at large (so he hires people that *do* understand it), but his election has resulted in an appointment to the supreme court of a judge who believes in following the law and constitution as written, not as stretched by a woman who had her spouse try to meet secretly with the attorney general when she was under investigation (which should have resulted in the firing of ms. lynch). apparently, caesar’s wife (or husband, in her case) does not need to be beyond even the appearance of corruption; he only needs to have no evidence against him. that same standard would no doubt have followed her into office.

    9 – Jesus said that we are to take the homeless in and care for them, but He did not say that we should not defend our families and friends when the “immigrant” rapes one’s wife and daughter, and murders one’s son. almost all immigrants to this nation have made every effort to blend in. we have a history of people coming here from all backgrounds and all nations, and succeeding in earning a living and raising a family. present circumstances are only rarely a predictor of how the immigrant will turn out. that said, some who want in are dangerous; they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. ms-13 comes to mind, but i believe that most of their members are recruited in center cities among citizens in poor living condistions. thus, i would direct U to the scriptures of the religion of pieces, islam. this vile cult teaches that muslims are the best people (quran 3:110), and that non-muslims are the worst of creatures (quran 8:55). consequently, it is not only OK, it is *expected* of pious muslims to lie to non-believers, steal from them, rape their women (and little girls), and kill them; the ulema has taught this for centuries, and does so at al-azhar university in cairo, the foremost center of islamic learning in the sunni world since the end of the 13th century or thereabouts, today. *everybody* who is non-muslim is a good candidate for entry into the u.s.; almost *no* muslims are, unless they are ahmadis or other rare sects (rare because they are murdered when found in muslim-majority nations). of course, this is me writing on the internet, and U don’t know me from adam, so U would be an idiot to just take my word for it. learn about abrogation, the kutub alsittah, the sira, the ulema, and the history of islam for yourself. if U just assume that i’m making up slander because i hate brown people, U are mistaken; the *ONLY* sources for the early history of islam are islamic scriptures, and that’s where i got this stuff. in order to prove me wrong, look for yourself; either that, or be intellectually lazy instead. is not the truth the best argument?

    8 – my current church doesn’t do anything that is patriotic as such, but that doesn’t preclude such things. i was once a member of a church that sponsored a troop of boy scouts, and as part of the scouts’ activities, they would start off a service once a year, with the u.s. and christian flags leading a procession down the aisle, followed by everybody reciting the pledge of allegiance, followed by a prayer for the troop. everybody there considered it as the church body helping guide boys into adulthood by sponsoring the troop, and the opening ceremony was part of the scout troop’s activity, not part of the worship. he who worships his country is a fool, as is he who does whatever his “country” wants; stephen decatur was *wrong” to say, “my country, right or wrong,” because a commie in the ussr could have said that, as could a nazi in WWII germany, or a child soldier in pol pot’s cambodia. thank U for painting me with that smear, BTW.

    7 – did i say that mr. trump is inarticulate? if not, this is me saying that he is a loose cannon. bombing the s**t out of somebody might be appropriate in a military or battle context, but is not usually so in a political context, unless somebody has perpetrated an act of war against the nation. furthermore, inciting violence against a fellow citizen is reprehensible (but U didn’t ask me, U just painted me. thanks). OTOH, mr. trump says and does a lot of outrageous and offensive things, things that no prior republican president or presidential candidate every came close to doing; it keeps his enemies stirred up, and often angers them … and sometimes, in their frustration with and rage against him, they slip up and accidentally expose their poisonous leftist cores to the public (conveniently remaining under- and un-reported by the legacy media). given that past republican presidents (and most republican congresscritters) have done little to distinguish themselves from ever more left-turning democrats, leading to democrat-controlled governments like mr. obama’s that turned sharply left and republican governments like both mr. bush’s that slightly slowed – but never came close to halting – the turn to the left, perhaps continuously banging on the hornet’s nest of the leftish democrats is not so stupid after all. we have *not* settled down to the quiet, steady turn to a dictatorship of the left that has characterized every administration since mr. reagan’s, and instead are in the midst of a partisan battle that has continued from the campaign until now, which has led to the exposure of the vile nature of much of the nation’s “leadership,” and that light of day is a Good Thing. finally, i would ask U to clarify your meaning a bit. surely U did not mean that mr. roosevelt’s response to the attack on pearl harbor should have been a simple chastisement of the japanese government?

    6 – i don’t remember saying this one. i guess U weren’t there when i said that mr. trump saying “i have nothing to be forgiven for” was a stupid thing to say proving that he was *not* a christian, so i’ll let it go. as i noted above, i voted for mr. trump because he was not ms. clinton. in this nation, in case U haven’t noticed, one really has only 2 choices in a presidential election. yes, there are always other candidates (*lots* of them in larger cities), but for the past 160 years or so, there have only really been 2 parties, with the occasional spoiler taking votes away from one party or the other. my choice, as i saw it, was to use my vote in the best way possible to stop a hard-core leftist with a penchant for corruption from becoming president. i’m sorry if U disagree, but i would do it again given the same circumstances. and i don’t think that trying to protect my family and my community makes me an evil person. i forgive U for thinking ill of me.

    5 – i never said that anything should be done to entertainers (that’s what sports stars are) for not standing during the national anthem, nor do i think that they are traitors. i do, however, think that they are bad businessmen. as an engineer, i sell my services to members of the public, and i do *not* discuss politics with my customers unless they become personal friends. friends understand that they don’t agree on everything, and still remain friends with one another even when they disagree on a thing about which they have passionate feelings. when one does not know the customer, however, one does everything one can to make him happy, and nothing to antagonize him. outside the business context, different rules apply, although a good businessman – *and* a good christian, BTW – will still does his level best not to draw adverse attention to himself. that said, circumstances sometimes become so dire that one must take actions without regard to what others may think; times of war and revolution come to mind (france, in 1940 and 1789, respectively). i do not believe that circumstances are so bad – yet – that we must take to arms, or even to be uncivil with those with whom we disagree. when a football player takes a political stance *while working with customers*, he is dividing his customers into those who will buy his product and those who will not. of course, these men are all fabulously wealthy (or at the very least, *very* well paid), so that may not matter to them; good for them. they have, however, offended me, because as americans, we should all agree that freedom is good, and that this nation treats its citizens very well. throughout history, almost all governments have treated their citizens abysmally; ours is a rare exception. the government is run by people, though, and people, being imperfect, don’t even carry out the laws perfectly, even when they might agree with them. should we then decide that freedom doesn’t work? the singing/playing of the anthem is one time when we can – and should – agree that our nation *aspires* to come ever closer to perfect application of the law, and honor that aspiration. or we can just attack one another physically on sight. which way do U think civilization will survive?

    4 – well, i need not expend as many words on this one, because Jesus said to render unto caesar what is caesar’s, and unto God what is His. He indeed also said to care for the poor, welcome the stranger, and give food to the hungry, but He didn’t say to use caesar’s things to do so. He meant for *US* to use *OUR* things to carry out His will. when “christians” sit back and wait for the government to take care of things, they are not following His will. goodness and charity cannot be coerced, but they *MUST* be present in christians. furthermore, *any* government run by *any* society will function better if its citizens take care of one another rather than using the power of the state to try to do so. BTW, socialism sounds very noble – from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs – but the society quickly devolves into one lazy guy figuring out that he doesn’t have to do very much, and everybody else figuring out that they’ll get stuck with all the work if they keep working hard, and deciding to do no more than the lazy guy. when the State owns everything, nobody takes care of anything, because the State will replace “it” whenever it is damaged; no need to be careful with “it” (fill in the blank for “it”). finally, central planning throws information from the consumer away, leading to stores filled with unwanted merchandise, and dire shortages of other merchandise. check out information theory and feedback sometime.

    3 – everybody living around the mediterranean has similar skin coloring, although berbers tend to be somewhat darker (and consequently have less skin cancer), so it is not very likely that the roman soldiers who crucified Jesus looked all that much different from Him. there is, of course, a chance that they might have been mercenaries from northern europe, but large numbers of germans and other northern europeans didn’t start serving as roman mercenaries until 150 years or so after His death and resurrection. my guess is that all those folks, even the Lord, were brown people, so i don’t think racism had much to do with the crucifixion. as to allowing people in, i think i have made myself clear above, but i would like to add that as citizens of a republic, we should strive to obey the law, and prevent those who deliberately *break* the law from becoming citizens. if U don’t like the law (and i *don’t*, having hated the current situation since the 1980s, when democrat politicians LIED and said that after 3 000 000 illegal aliens were granted amnesty, the law would be fixed), change it, so that respect for the law – rather than specific politicians – is maintained. have U tried to get your congresscritters to change the law? i have.

    2 – mr. obama was elected by a people who felt a collective guilt for bad treatement of black people (an understatement if ever there was one) more than they felt fear of his politics, which are alinskyite leftist. a people being fooled is not an evil thing in and of itself, but voting for a candidate because of a personal characteristic rather than because of his beliefs is foolish. i did not vote for mr. obama because i *did* fear his politics, but i must say that when the teleprompter was in place, he was at least as good a speaker as mr. reagan, who was also very good with a teleprompter. also like mr. reagan, mr. obama sincerely believed much of what he said in the election – in all 57 states (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) – but unlike mr. reagan, he hid what his real beliefs were. do U really think that rev. wright was a christian? the Lord will judge in the end, but it sure didn’t sound like rev. mr. wright was preaching the Good News to me. since mr. obama attended that “church” for 25 years, i suspect that his beliefs are similar. what was that about mr. trump’s christianity?

    1 – i spent the late 1990s saying that mr. clinton perjured himself, and that the democratic party cared more about retaining power than they did about breaking the law. yes, it was a dirty-trick sex and perjury trap that the republicans sprang to remove the president, but had the democrats actually respected the law, they would have voted to impeach because of his perjury; instead, they voted to keep power. lying under oath is a crime at other times, but no longer for the president. thank U, mr. clinton. i would also like to point out (sighs) once again that i voted for mr. trump because he was *not* ms. clinton, not because i thought he was a paragon of virtue. he is a serial womanizer, a liar, a poor-little-rich-boy who made his money from the paltry $500 million his daddy gave him to get started … in short, he is about an unlikeable and unworthy of respect as a president can get without being a criminal (the russia b.s. hasn’t been proved yet, and i doubt that it will be), but the bottom line is that – wait for it – HE IS *N*O*T* MS. CLINTON. i didn’t choose him; circumstances did.

    0 – let’s stop shouting, and start talking. fora like this is a good place to start, because one writes his opinion, and readers have to finish the article if they want to make a coherent reply. if there’s one thing i can’t stand, it’s the TV shows where talking heads interrupt and shout at one another; i’ve stopped watching that drivel. i would respectfully like to propose that we make greater efforts not to call one another names, make generalizations about one another, and make ad hominem attacks on each other. as a fellow follower of the Way, i wish U His love and guidance.

    • Your response is perfect. Yes – this article works hard to create a strawman Trump supporter to beat up on.

    • B.A. this is in response to your comments to me that apparently have been since deleted, questioning me about my views on Franklin Graham, the Far Right, and your libertarian views. Your questions showed up in my email, but I cannot find them here. They may have been flagged as “spam.” Happens all the time to me. What follows is my response.
      There is nothing wrong with Samaritan’s Purse. Franklin founded it but it runs on it’s own. Franklin tends towards bigotry and outright hatred. Let’s call it the outcome of his Southern Christian heritage. He was part and parcel of the whole “Obama is a Muslim” smear campaign. His unrelenting attacks on the gay community and coziness with Trump, the baby Christian with baby hands is nauseating and discredits his Christianity. Along with Dobson and others his simplistic version of abortion as murder and his likening of Chelsea Clinton’s views on abortion as similar to Hitler’s views on the final solution of the Jews is disgusting and a cheap shot.

      His war mongering support of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, his general confusion and intermingling of nationalism with Christianity. His glowing praise for Donald Trump and the claim that “God had showed up,” in the election of the most misogynistic, lying president we’ve ever had, bar non, is disgusting. The NAACP implored him to “refrain from using Christianity as a weapon of political division.”

      In other words, he is an abrasive and divisive Christian who wishes to force feed his toxic brand of Christianity on everyone. This includes “putting God back in politics,” as he put it. He, like Cruz and others envision a Christian Sharia law in a sort of wacko romanticized rewrite of the history of Christianity in the US.

      And I didn’t miss the boat by a few decades. I am 67, born into the evangelical faith, born again age six, “baptized in the Spirit,” age 16. Mission trips, youth camps, choir, Bible school, Fuller Seminary…evangelical: walked the walk, talked the talk. Seen it all.

      “Being human means xenophobia.” Couldn’t disagree more. No one is born racist. Watch infants of different race play together. If they tussle with each other over a toy they don’t do so because they are racist. No, we are born selfish. No one is born racist or xenophobic.

      Speaking of selfish let’s talk about libertarian tendencies. I find it very disturbing that so many of my evangelical acquaintances and family are libertarian. This is not an outgrowth of Christianity and is counter to Jesus’ teachings and the example of the disciples. I understand WHY people find libertarian views appealing, but it needs to be viewed as a entirely secular worldview with no relationship to Christ’s teaching at all. It is an outgrowth of the individualist American spirit that tends towards selfishness and “me first.”

      One of the most obvious examples of the evangelical libertarian impulse is its historical use of state’s rights to block social reform. It was used for years in the Jim Crow South and has been resurrected as a means to block equality for interracial marriage, same sex marriage, voting rights, and more things than I can fit here. Nor is the libertarian impulse an equal opportunity worldview. Christian libertarians say to Big Government, “butt out, leave me alone…but as far as Muslims, women, people of color, gays, immigrants, refugees, well, the government needs to police them and control them. Freedom goes only one way, theirs.

      The “Hard Right” is basically an outgrowth of the age old white European superiority complex that immigrated here to the US with the first white settlers. The “I am better than you, and you are lesser than me, therefore God has given me the right to subjugate you and rule over you” complex. The reason it has come so much to the forefront recently, usually referred to as White Nationalism, is because of the fact that whites will be a minority in the coming decades. It scares the bejesus out of people.

      I’ve gone on long enough. Hope this clarifies a few things.

      • Kirk, thank U for responding to me. i recall making a comment about “missing the boat by a few decades,” but i don’t remember the context, and i’m pretty sure it wasn’t a comment on this particular article. i, too, have seen responses to my comments which i have subsequently been unable to find on line, and i suspect in those cases that the original thread got deleted by the original poster … but i’m not sure. in any case, i have not yet knowingly deleted any comments (there should be a few thousand out there by now). :-/

        in any case, when i go back and read my posts, i almost always wish that i had worded them a little differently. i *want* to be clear, but often am not; i apologize for that. in particular, i am a conservative with libertarian leanings, by which i mean that i prefer for the State to stay out of people’s business as much as possible. the main reason i am *not* a libertarian is that they seem to be just this side of anarchism, and sometimes at one with it. as has often been noted, government would not be needed were we perfect, but we are not; thus, if we have no government, or too minimal a government, we will end up with a government run by thugs. the government must be able to defend itself from external threats to its existence, and also to internal threats to it. it must also prevent disagreements from escalating into physical attacks, and provide recourse in the courts to resolve conflicts when necessary.

        i could go on and on (and usually do), as can be seen by the lenght of the comment to which U responded here on patheos dot com (although if U did it by email, i guess U didn’t see it), but i, too, have said enough. thank U again for clarifying your position. as i said in my comment above:
        i would respectfully like to propose that we make greater efforts
        not
        to call one another names, make generalizations about one
        another, and
        make ad hominem attacks on each other. as a fellow
        follower of the Way,
        i wish U His love and guidance.

        • Btw seeing as how you like to throw the term fascist and nazi around at leftists learn some history

          Your mate Orban in hungary who you admire so much is trying to resurrect Miklos Horthy’s reputation. You know – the bloke who formed an Alliance with the Nazis….And who has bestowed medals on members of the Far Right Arrow Cross Party who were responsible for rounding up Hungarian Jews.

          Moron!

        • “i would respectfully like to propose that we make greater efforts
          not
          to call one another names, make generalizations about one
          another, and
          make ad hominem attacks on each other.”

          Coming from a guy who is actually doing that.

          Who from his own posts

          Labels leftists as liars and irrational
          “they are liars *because* they are leftist, as conservatroll notes.”

          http://disq.us/p/1vrdzri

          Labels ALL Muslims as terrorists

          Says the Left is indoctrinating students into anti-semitism

          Applauds the work of the Far Right in Hungary and hopes Trump can emulate Viktor Orban whose running the country like a dictator

          Labels the UK, UKstan

          How about this corker

          “”and lilke the nazis they are, the left has made it illegal to homeschool. the bottom line is that children belong the the State, and they *will* be removed from parents if they don’t toe the line. of course, that’s for *citizens* of deutschland, not their masters, the muslims; they can do anything they want with either their own children (child marriage, FGM, etc.) or with the State’s children (citizens don’t have children, of course).

          bunch of g.d. nazis.”

          http://disq.us/p/1vivz9a

          Mate you’re a fricking hypocrite, and a liar.

        • One reason I refuse to support it. I have problems with “charitable” organizations that are a thin covering for evangelism. If getting people “saved” is the primary motivation for acts of charity, then one is no better than the Amway salesperson who uses church as a cover for his sales activities. They’re just selling tickets to heaven rather than soap.

    • “the *ONLY* sources for the early history of islam are islamic scriptures, and that’s where i got this stuff. in order to prove me wrong, look for yourself; either that, or be intellectually lazy instead. is not the truth the best argument?”

      No, you didn’t. You got it off the internet.

      And trump gave $110 billion in weapons to the most extremist Muslim country on Earth….

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6347ed7085c13e2ff3bcc68a18f2107753cf5b75f42fdf9f7a10bb06e652680.jpg

      Yeah let’s start talking…

      Like at what stage did you sell yourself out?

      Btw Jeremiah Wright is a pastor of 8000. In what world is he not a Christian?

      Because he criticised the United States for its racism and policies in other countries which we’re seeing now as well. Bin Laden himself said that his attack was because of US policies in the Middle East. I guess that leaves King out as well..

      I suppose he’s not a true Christian like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who blamed 9/11 on feminists, liberals, gays and abortion….and no one batted an eyelid.

      But good to know you don’t make generalisations about others.

      • And don’t forget, it was the Saudi’s who attacked us on 9/11. Seventeen of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, as was Osama Bin Laden.