ericttspikes
Footballguy
and believe that their freedom will only happen when others are oppressed.those who’ve enjoyed privilege will always see attempts at equality as oppression
and believe that their freedom will only happen when others are oppressed.those who’ve enjoyed privilege will always see attempts at equality as oppression
Would Jesus vote for Trump? Of course not. Absurd to even imagine it. The guy is morally repulsive and when you vote for someone, you are supporting that person. It makes zero sense for an evangelical to support Trump. This isn’t hardu can’t be serious
Id say that their politics are more important to them than their religion. But that’s just one opinionThe weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.
What was that all about?
So if think Christian prayer should be allowed in public schools, would you allow Muslim prayer? Would you allow a statue of Baphemet in a public school next to the Ten Commandments? Would you be sympathetic to a Jew being opposed to pictures of Jesus in public schools?School prayer
public invocations
abortion laws
contraception laws
God as mentioned in gov’t proceedings
censorship and community standards
etc., ad nauseum
There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right. That someone who says "X is true, Y is false, it is known" will garner support specifically from people who believe in an ironclad literal translation of the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of God. In fact, since they all know that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible even just into English, it is believed that the ability to believe that all of those are the inerrant and unchanging word of God makes them particularly susceptible to those who activate "feelings" over facts, and who tell them that people who claim to have proved the authoritarian wrong are just playing "semantic games" - you know, like the people who say that not all of those translations can be the accurate and unchanging word of God.The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.
What was that all about?
Anecdotally....There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right
I've certainly seen examples. Of course that doesn't mean it is a valid conclusion overall, but it seems plausible for at least some.Anecdotally....
this is spot on
Maybe. Is that what you're doing? You're probably best equipped to explain what you're doing.As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.
Maybe we are finally taking that advice.
Seems to go against what religion is all about though. What's the point of being a religious person if you're going to completely leave it as an afterthought when voting for the leader of your country?As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.
Maybe we are finally taking that advice.
But seriously, I think this is the answer.Two big reasons:
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
You didn't really leave your faith at the door if you voted for Donald Trump. But one of the things you did do was sacrifice the "character matters" argument in elections to come.As a Christian, I've been asked (told?) ad nauseam, to leave my faith at the door when entering the voting booth.
Maybe we are finally taking that advice.
No. I was being tongue in cheek.Maybe. Is that what you're doing? You're probably best equipped to explain what you're doing.
Oh. So what's the actual explanation, do you think?No. I was being tongue in cheek.
Agreed. My faith does influence what I do in the voting booth. It always has and always will.Seems to go against what religion is all about though. What's the point of being a religious person if you're going to completely leave it as an afterthought when voting for the leader of your country?
Sadly, I agree.You didn't really leave your faith at the door if you voted for Donald Trump. But one of the things you did do was sacrifice the "character matters" argument in elections to come.
Do you mean at a federal/legal level? There are numerous "complaints" that have been filed within the various organizations in the past. That's probably where the fear comes from, but you'd have to ask them that.Right. And here’s a big one in recent years: “protecting” Christians from gay rights. For some reason or another there is a paranoid fear in certain parts of the country that a gay couple is going to try to force a Baptist church to perform gay marriages.
The Supreme Court imo.Oh. So what's the actual explanation, do you think?
What does this mean? Or, maybe better, what kinds of complaints?Do you mean at a federal/legal level? There are numerous "complaints" that have been filed within the various organizations in the past. That's probably where the fear comes from, but you'd have to ask them that.
This is an example of his question, not an answer to his question. Was that the intent?Lesser of 2 evils.It’s difficult to imagine how an “evangelical” would be a supporter of Trump. This seems as good a reason as any, because logically it makes little sense.
Is there some reason Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, etc wouldn't have appointed conservative justices?The Supreme Court imo.
Not at first. Don’t forget that Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus. And when Trump won in New Hampshire it was mostly with non-evangelical conservative types.The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.
What was that all about?
If you knew then what you know today, you're still voting Trump?Lesser of 2 evils.
If you ask a social conservative I’m betting they would tell you “yes. The reason is they would have lost to Hillary.”Is there some reason Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, etc wouldn't have appointed conservative justices?
Was at a funeral yesterday. The Lutheran minister was running Numbers 6:24. Now I attended Lutheran ceremonies occasionally as a young person with my grandfather, but more often, much, much more often Catholic ceremonies with my parents and grandmothers. I was expecting him to run with the Lord maketh his countenance to shine down upon us but found it nearly startling when all the Lord was beseeched to do was to make his face shine down upon us. Not a major difference, but there it is.There is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right. That someone who says "X is true, Y is false, it is known" will garner support specifically from people who believe in an ironclad literal translation of the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of God. In fact, since they all know that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible even just into English, it is believed that the ability to believe that all of those are the inerrant and unchanging word of God makes them particularly susceptible to those who activate "feelings" over facts, and who tell them that people who claim to have proved the authoritarian wrong are just playing "semantic games" - you know, like the people who say that not all of those translations can be the accurate and unchanging word of God.
I suppose that hypothesis has some merit, though I don't imagine it's been studied very heavily.
There is a grain of truth to this, but.......a poll from January 2016 showed that Trump had the support of 37% of evangelicals, compared to only 20% for Cruz.Not at first. Don’t forget that Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus. And when Trump won in New Hampshire it was mostly with non-evangelical conservative types.The weird thing to me is not that evangelicals supported Trump over Hillary in the general election. The weird thing to me is that they supported him over Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee et al. in the primary.
What was that all about?
Huckabee was never really in it, but Cruz was the choice of social conservatives until after New Hampshire. After that it became the old adage: you go with the winner.
Other than those that think the KJV is the literal word of God, most Christians I know understand that the Bible was originally written in different languages and that current translations into modern languages are man’s best attempts to put the original word of God into languages that modern man can understandThere is a hypothesis that evangelical Christians are particularly susceptible to authoritarian rulers - they crave the simplicity of someone who tells them exactly what to think and do and who is right. That someone who says "X is true, Y is false, it is known" will garner support specifically from people who believe in an ironclad literal translation of the Bible as the inerrant and unchanging word of God. In fact, since they all know that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible even just into English, it is believed that the ability to believe that all of those are the inerrant and unchanging word of God makes them particularly susceptible to those who activate "feelings" over facts, and who tell them that people who claim to have proved the authoritarian wrong are just playing "semantic games" - you know, like the people who say that not all of those translations can be the accurate and unchanging word of God.
I suppose that hypothesis has some merit, though I don't imagine it's been studied very heavily.
From a Christian perspective it makes total sense if we acknowledge how broken we are. From a logic perspective, I agree 100%. From a theological perspective, I can easily see how this happens. This is probably discussion for another thread though.Would Jesus vote for Trump? Of course not. Absurd to even imagine it. The guy is morally repulsive and when you vote for someone, you are supporting that person. It makes zero sense for an evangelical to support Trump. This isn’t hard
Example from 2014What does this mean? Or, maybe better, what kinds of complaints?
I actually think that one in particular is potentially a pretty substantive difference, but it's a really boring discussion.Was at a funeral yesterday. The Lutheran minister was running Numbers 6:24. Now I attended Lutheran ceremonies occasionally as a young person with my grandfather, but more often, much, much more often Catholic ceremonies with my parents and grandmothers. I was expecting him to run with the Lord maketh his countenance to shine down upon us but found it nearly startling when all the Lord was beseeched to do was to make his face shine down upon us. Not a major difference, but there it is.
They're "happy" in the same way someone who has joined an MLM is "happy" with the MLM despite their costs obviously outweighing their benefits so far. It's hope that they have, and that hope is more than enough to blind them from a disappointing reality.I can only speak to this on an anecdotal level. But the evangelical Christians I know (quite a few) who support President Trump are very happy with him. They approve of his statements and actions, and especially his court appointments. I certainly don’t sense fear. They like him.
Most Christians I spend time with consider the Bible to be a collection of important allegories that, when considered thoughtfully, lead to an increased ability to understand the human condition and humanity's place here on Earth.Other than those that think the KJV is the literal word of God, most Christians I know understand that the Bible was originally written in different languages and that current translations into modern languages are man’s best attempts to put the original word of God into languages that modern man can understand
Lets not have it then, at least in public.I actually think that one in particular is potentially a pretty substantive difference, but it's a really boring discussion.
That is true. Gut feeling, Gorsuch will move closer to the middle in the next few years. Just a gut feelingTwo big reasons:
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if I understand how people challenging a church's rules within the procedures established by the church is a threat to evangelicals (maybe you didn't want to relate it to that). I would hope -- but certainly not have 100% confidence -- that gay people would not ask the courts to intercede with a church's decision not to participate.Example from 2014
Essentially, members of most church organizations have a process they can go through if they want to attempt to challenge the "rules" of their governing body. Many have used this process to try and get the churches to change their minds....most won't even acknowledge it, but when they begin the process, the word gets out pretty quickly throughout the denomination they are a part of.
That's an interesting perspective, but not really a Christian one.Most Christians I spend time with consider the Bible to be a collection of important allegories that, when considered thoughtfully, lead to an increased ability to understand the human condition and humanity's place here on Earth.
To the final point, there have been cases around the world where gay couples have challenged, in their federal courts, the decision. All I'm saying is that, to me, its relatively easy to see why a group would fear this happening. They see it happening in individual church organizations in this country and in federal courts around the world, what's to stop it from happening in our federal or state courts if this country?Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if I understand how people challenging a church's rules within the procedures established by the church is a threat to evangelicals (maybe you didn't want to relate it to that). I would hope -- but certainly not have 100% confidence -- that gay people would not ask the courts to intercede with a church's decision not to participate.
Well, that's definitely not true.That's an interesting perspective, but not really a Christian one.
No. But I took the article (and your subsequent question) to revolve around why evangelicals support Trump now, not during the primaries.Is there some reason Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, etc wouldn't have appointed conservative justices?
Well they’re in touch with “The Handmaid’s Tale”, anyhow.Yes, both a love of tyranny and a desire to see the United States ruled as a "Christian Taliban" is what evangelicals want. This makes sense and uses sound logic.
There's a reason this place is hilariously out of touch.
He said himself that he could shoot someone in the street and wouldn't lose support. I feel strongly he knows bestYes, both a love of tyranny and a desire to see the United States ruled as a "Christian Taliban" is what evangelicals want. This makes sense and uses sound logic.
There's a reason this place is hilariously out of touch.