Trump & Religious Principles

[7thKeeper]

I can and I will but you are the one who can’t stand the counter challenge. Typical liberal maneuver.

Doing that was quite childish of you. You were asked for an example, and instead of providing it went "Nuh uh! I totally could, but you first." And you still haven't provided that example and I suspect you won't, because that was just a way to avoid answering. Or you could prove everyone wrong?

 

[Postvieww]

Did you bother watching it all, or just the first 15 seconds?

If you go only to 1:30, it clear that Putin is *trolling* you and you bit the bait hook, line, and sinker.

I saw saw the commentator’s OPINION on what Putin was doing. I’ll just let Putin speak for himself. No thinking world despot is for Trump.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I saw saw the commentator’s OPINION on what Putin was doing. I’ll just let Putin speak for himself. No thinking world despot is for Trump.

There are no "thinking world" despots. SMH.

There is footage of Putin laughing at the notion that he actually supports VP Harris and at the suckers who fell for his statement of "support".

 

[stevevw]

Can anyone reconcile the figure of Donald Trump, the ever-patriotic guy with good command of economic principles, & negotiating skills with the fact that his bullying behavior from the businessworld to staff to the constant denigrating of persons or groups of people in the worst possible language stands out so much. As a populist he just throws away support from so many groups by just signaling that everyone in the world is inferior to him. All this seems inconsistent with the 10 Commandments & other concepts of just common decency. It's like he's one of the Pharisees who were pretending to be holy but really were more about bullying the common folk.

I guess thats the paradox of Donald Trump. On the one hand he is all those things. But on the other does stand for certain principles that a lot of commonsense people agree with.

I think he has more Conservative beliefs that progressive left ideology. Believes in meritocracy I think. It seems even some prominant democrates have joined him and other business heads and intellectuals. Despite them even acknowledging his idiosyncrasies.

It appears he is saying something of worth to garner such support. More people are seeing through the media hype to what he actually stands for. I think his reaction to the assassination attempt has changed peoples views as well. Its not all bad. Maybe for Trump supporters the bad they see in him is not as bad as the bad they see in the Left and Harris.

 

[Postvieww]

There are no "thinking world" despots. SMH.

There is footage of Putin laughing at the notion that he actually supports VP Harris and at the suckers who fell for his statement of "support".

What about the suckers that believe Putin prefers Trump over Harris? That is a totally ridiculous notion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about the suckers that believe Putin prefers Trump over Harris? That is a totally ridiculous notion.

SMH. Watch some Russian TV. See what they tell each other.

 

[Postvieww]

SMH. Watch some Russian TV. See what they tell each other.

Per your own methods, send me a video.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Per your own methods, send me a video.

I had a better one prepped earlier in this thread, but just referred to your video instead since it showed the same information. Putin thinks he's clowning people. Almost everyone gets what he is up to with this "endorsement".

 

[ViaCrucis]

I guess thats the paradox of Donald Trump. On the one hand he is all those things. But on the other does stand for certain principles that a lot of commonsense people agree with.

What principles does he stand for?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FenderTL5]

What principles does he stand for?

-CryptoLutheran

He doesn't want to be held accountable for his indiscretions and crime(s)????

 

[dlamberth]

He doesn't want to be held accountable for his indiscretions and crime(s)????

Or his lies?

 

[FireDragon76]

Or his lies?

I don't understand how so many so-called Christians are fine supporting a man that so casually lies. I would think that would be a non-starter from the get go.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't understand how so many so-called Christians are fine supporting a man that so casually lies. I would think that would be a non-starter from the get go.

Anyone that's known me on here for long enough has likely seen me (and this is pre-Trump) speak very critically about the way that Christianity has become a cultural identifier, rather than an actual religion.

The following is anecdotal, so take that for whatever it may or may not be worth. Watching a video on YouTube earlier this week there was one of those stereotypical "alpha male" types railing on about what "real masculinity" looks like. And the thing that stood out to me was that he made an appeal to the Bible, saying "The Bible says you were meant to conquer". This stood out to me, because, well, what on earth was he even talking about? How does someone read the Bible with even any amount of seriousness and get "men are supposed to conquer" out of it? But that's just it, that's not a statement a serious student of the Bible would make, because anyone with any basic biblical literacy, with any basic literacy of the Christian religion, would recognize as absurd.

This is just one example--and it's not isolated, it's something I have been observing for decades as a trend--of Christianity as cultural identifier, rather than actual religion. Here "the Bible" is not a robust collection of sacred texts which the Christian Church historically devotes itself to in pondering, study, and seeking to forge consistent principles of Christ-centered thought and behavior; instead "the Bible" is simply a weapon of culture, by appealing to "the Bible" the opinion "men should be conquerors" (or replace this with anything else) is given a sense of pseudo-religious weight. After all it's "the Bible", and the Bible is important, right? No serious attention, weight, contemplation, meditation, is made to the content of the Bible; the Bible is simply a self-authenticating marker, a mere token of authority, it simply means "I'm right, you should take me seriously".

The same thing happens with God. In religious Christianity God is declared to be known through the humanity of the Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. St. Paul says that though God's wisdom and power are on display through the natural world, this isn't how people come to know God--instead people become idolators. Instead, knowledge of God--to know God in any kind of personal way--exists exclusively through Jesus. Jesus is the Logos made flesh, the Divine Son of the Father, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Jesus is called the Mediator, the Great High Priest, the Image of the Invisible God, etc and so forth. To know Jesus, the Son of Man who had no place to rest His head and who laid down His life as a ransom through the weakness and shame of the cross, is to know God.

But what is "God" as a mere cultural token? That which reveals Himself in the suffering and weakness of Jesus? Or as an abstract concept of power which plays favorites, that rewards "the good guys" and punishes "the bad guys"; because being "good" and "bad" is about affiliation, cultural identity. It's like being able to say, "We're the good guys because we have Abraham as our father", so it's okay if we ignore the lepers, the widows, the orphans; it's okay if we are more interested in heaping praise and accumulating earthly wealth rather than caring for the least of these. "Abraham is our father", i.e. "We are members of the right team, the right tribe, the right club". "I'm a Christian" does not have to mean, "Take up my cross and follow Jesus", instead it can just mean, "I'm one of the good guys", "I'm on the right team", "I'm a real American". It's just "We have Abraham as our father". God is a token, religion is just cosplay.

Donald Trump doesn't need to have principle, or behave in a particular way, or have any personal conviction or personal faith. All that matters is that Donald Trump panders. When Donald Trump panders to Christians, it's to Christianity as a cultural tribal identity; it has nothing to do with Christianity as a religion. It's about performative religiosity, religious cosplaying.

Abraham is our father, we're the good guys.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

Anyone that's known me on here for long enough has likely seen me (and this is pre-Trump) speak very critically about the way that Christianity has become a cultural identifier, rather than an actual religion.

I think this is exactly so, unfortunately.

"Don't lie" is pretty much foundational to the ethical systems of the world's great religions, including the Hebrew Bible.

The following is anecdotal, so take that for whatever it may or may not be worth. Watching a video on YouTube earlier this week there was one of those stereotypical "alpha male" types railing on about what "real masculinity" looks like. And the thing that stood out to me was that he made an appeal to the Bible, saying "The Bible says you were meant to conquer". This stood out to me, because, well, what on earth was he even talking about? How does someone read the Bible with even any amount of seriousness and get "men are supposed to conquer" out of it? But that's just it, that's not a statement a serious student of the Bible would make, because anyone with any basic biblical literacy, with any basic literacy of the Christian religion, would recognize as absurd.

Have you followed Kristin du Mez? She is a scholar of religion at Calvin University, and specializes in studying the history of religion and gender in America. She has alot to say about how Christian masculinity has been reconstructed along the lines of American pop culture.

This is just one example--and it's not isolated, it's something I have been observing for decades as a trend--of Christianity as cultural identifier, rather than actual religion. Here "the Bible" is not a robust collection of sacred texts which the Christian Church historically devotes itself to in pondering, study, and seeking to forge consistent principles of Christ-centered thought and behavior; instead "the Bible" is simply a weapon of culture,

Yes. Though I think cultural conservatives in general have mostly been using the Bible as a weapon, and it's got roots going back for centuries (all the way to Constantine and Medieval Christendom), in the America context, this has never undergone any kind of serious critique outside of certain liberal Protestant churches.

by appealing to "the Bible" the opinion "men should be conquerors" (or replace this with anything else) is given a sense of pseudo-religious weight. After all it's "the Bible", and the Bible is important, right? No serious attention, weight, contemplation, meditation, is made to the content of the Bible; the Bible is simply a self-authenticating marker, a mere token of authority, it simply means "I'm right, you should take me seriously".

Yes. More broadly, Americans often use religion to end conversations and to avoid critical thought.

But what is "God" as a mere cultural token? That which reveals Himself in the suffering and weakness of Jesus?

As one Greek philosopher said, if horses had gods, they'ld look like horses. Even Christians are not immune to this kind of idolatry. Believing God is a tribal deity who is "on our side" is indeed idolatry, given the complexity, diversity, and mystery behind the world, I simply can't accept that God is so small and petty.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess thats the paradox of Donald Trump. On the one hand he is all those things. But on the other does stand for certain principles that a lot of commonsense people agree with.

There is a lot in the post you were responding to that is wrong about DJT. If I comment on them it will be in reply to that post.

I think he has more Conservative beliefs that progressive left ideology. Believes in meritocracy I think.

I wouldn't say Trump believes in meritocracy. In a meritocracy Trump's best path would have been own a large used car dealership on Long Island after working his way up as the best salesman on the floor. Instead Donald rose on the wealth of his fathers efforts.

It's not meritocracy that he believes in but that he got what he has because he is inherently superior. (He's been talking about his "great genes" for a very long time, including claiming to understand science-y stuff because his uncle was a physics professor.)

It seems even some prominant democrates have joined him and other business heads and intellectuals. Despite them even acknowledging his idiosyncrasies.

I'm not sure who these people are that you speak of.

It appears he is saying something of worth to garner such support. More people are seeing through the media hype to what he actually stands for.

What does he stand for? Himself, his ego, his fame... yes we know those are the things he stands for. He's been consistently authoritarian for decades. Racist and xenophobic.

I think his reaction to the assassination attempt has changed peoples views as well. Its not all bad. Maybe for Trump supporters the bad they see in him is not as bad as the bad they see in the Left and Harris.

I don't think the assassination attempt affected Trump in the slightest, nor has it affected any of those who oppose him. The only thing that has changed is a small bit of rhetoric he has invoked himself as "saved by god" to play to the religious inclinations of his fans.

 

[stevevw]

There is a lot in the post you were responding to that is wrong about DJT. If I comment on them it will be in reply to that post.

Ok. Are you talking about the post I responded to or something before that. I responded to the post about characterising Trump as I think mean, rude arrogant, bully, ect. That he could be more like Vance and would be more popular. That people would not act that way if Godly following the 10 commandments. Not those exact words to a summary.

I wouldn't say Trump believes in meritocracy. In a meritocracy Trump's best path would have been own a large used car dealership on Long Island after working his way up as the best salesman on the floor. Instead Donald rose on the wealth of his fathers efforts.

Thats a fallacy as it does not follow that Trump has not earnt his position. Sure he inherited a lot of what he has but thats sort of part of the point. He comes from good stock in that regard whether genetically or as growing up in that environment. At the very least we can say some good knowledge and experiences have rubbed off and I think far more than any politicians who has not had such life experiences.

Apart from that you can see he is competitive and all for enterprise and merit. Look at that reality show 'Your fired'. Thats all about merit and competition. Maybe a bit too much so and probably a weakness. But the point is anyone who goes through those experiences changes and takes all that in and learns from it.

Other politicians especially Harris who is completely devoid of that type of thinking because its too hard for her she has no idea. They go in pretending they know everything about anything and then the reality hits and exposes them.

It's not meritocracy that he believes in but that he got what he has because he is inherently superior. (He's been talking about his "great genes" for a very long time, including claiming to understand science-y stuff because his uncle was a physics professor.)

Yeah I think its funny. He is like a big kid show off. I think he knows he's doing it and for a purpose. Especially when the Left pretend they are better than him.

But thats the point. The Left does it too. Its a game about who's the best in whatever way they can get an upper hand. Trump is good at that as he can get down and dirty. But don't pretend the Left doesn't do exactly the same in their own way.

Its just done more covertly and underhanded and put more eloquently like with Hillary calling the Trump voters deplorables like she was so far removed and superior to those Trump voters. This is the general view of the Left who themselves think they are superior.

Trump just calls says your a scum bag lol. Doesn't mince his words lol. But they basically both mean the same thing.

I'm not sure who these people are that you speak of.

What, I thought this was common knowledge. Well you have the obvious politicians like Gabbard and Kennedy. They are pretty big endorcements. Of course everyone knows Musk is behind Trump. I think Trump is forming some sort of think tank with Kennedy and other business people as part of governance.

But also Bill Ackman, Ben Horowitz and others who normally distance themselves from Trump are now supporting him. Also the Teamsters supporting Trump though they don't officially. But they have traditionally supported the Dems. Evidently theres not much support for Harris.

What does he stand for? Himself, his ego, his fame... yes we know those are the things he stands for. He's been consistently authoritarian for decades. Racist and xenophobic.

Well evidently now he is taking a bipartisen approach we governmence. Like I said Kennedy and probably Gabbard will play a role and some business minds.

They have come to an agreement where they both compromised some positions to make it work. Kennedy said he supported Trumps common sense and principled position which he said aligned with his. I find Kennedy reasonable and principled and he also comes from good stock.

It seems that also aligns with other prominant people. So they don't seem to share many Dems ill informed and biased views. They have actually got to know him and like what they see. Of course they don't agree or like his brashness but they take that as part of the bigger picture and more principled reasons about what they all stand for. Which is MAGA basically. Kennedy wants to make Americas healthly great again.

I don't think the assassination attempt affected Trump in the slightest, nor has it affected any of those who oppose him. The only thing that has changed is a small bit of rhetoric he has invoked himself as "saved by god" to play to the religious inclinations of his fans.

Actually I have heard many say they changed their view of Trump because of the way he reacted once shot and seems willing to put his life on the line for what he believes in. Similassr has been said about Vance. That he was a man of principle and enlisted the day after 9/11 showing his courage and commitment to standing up for the US and freedom.

I think its a pretty powerful message and its starting to come through. I think much of this is because of Vance as he balances things out. But as they unite on many issues and policies people see through all the hype.

Whereas the Left is all about highlighting race and gender and not merit and people begin to see through this ideology. They are now more consummed with covering up and managing the word salads and lack of coherent policy coming from a political appointment rather than a true candidate with merit. For which they should have sorted and not during the election lol.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Whereas the Left is all about highlighting race and gender and not merit

Have you considered the possibility that what people on the Left are doing is wanting to create the circumstances in which the only thing that matters is merit, and that it shouldn't matter what a person's skin color is, or what their gender is, what ought to matter is their ability, their character, and that a good, fair, and just society is one which doesn't prejudice against people based on race, gender, or religion?

This level of not getting it isn't striking out in MLB, this is striking out at teeball, and the ball is a wiiffle ball.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Whyayeman]

Have you considered the possibility that what people on the Left are doing is wanting to create the circumstances in which the only thing that matters is merit, and that it shouldn't matter what a person's skin color is, or what their gender is, what ought to matter is their ability, their character, and that a good, fair, and just society is one which doesn't prejudice against people based on race, gender, or religion?

I thought people on the right want those things too.

I often think that this old 'Left' label is a bit lazy. It is a relative term used rather loosely in America. It has a stronger meaning in Europe generally.

 

[FireDragon76]

I thought people on the right want those things too.

In the US, the Right's politics increasingly has become captive to racial grievance and symbolic racism.

 

[Whyayeman]

In the US, the Right's politics increasingly has become captive to racial grievance and symbolic racism.

Yes. Some introspection seems desirable. In a thread about religious principles what place is there for racism, symbolic or not?

Trump seems to be exploiting racism - or at least xenophobia - to gain power.