• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

C H R I S T I A N S

Once again, keep your Christian religion out of politics. If you are able to support trump, you are exactly the type of christian I despise. I can't mention politics in the theology section, why should you be able to spread your religious bullshit into our politics. Not everyone in America is a Christian and some folks, like me, don't believe in your christian god at all. Are you trying to push a national religion on folks who don't want one?
If you don't want Christians voting for Trump, your party should have offered a better choice. Unfortunately, progressives love antagonizing Christians, and many other faiths as well. A lot of Christians would like to tell Trump to go take a flying leap. But they can hardly do that when progressive/leftist/Democrats are poking Christians with sharp sticks.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that if Evangelical Christians had the same focus that Jesus had in the 4 Gospels, they wouldn't have a lot of y'all in the club. The ministry of Jesus was in the Roman Empire, where open homosexuality and transsexuals were common. This would not have been new to the ancient Israelites, because with their previous occupier, ancient Greece, open homosexuality was common as well. Yet, Jesus never mentioned either topic in any of the 4 Gospels. Given the time period in the Gospel of John, his ministry is estimated to have been as long as 3 years. He would certainly encounter many people that were gay, yet he never mentioned in in the Gospels. Paul is the only one to mention it in the NT when he wrote the church in Corinth (you know, Trump's "1 Corinthians") and when he wrote he wrote the church in Rome, that time he included a verse about lesbian relations. Yet, at the same time, Jesus mentioned the poor over 300 times and the sick over 60 times.
And yet, Jesus was capable of showing his anger.
 
If you don't want Christians voting for Trump, your party should have offered a better choice.
Grow up.

It’s nobody’s fault but the morons that vote for Traitor Trump.
Unfortunately, progressives love antagonizing Christians, and many other faiths as well.
Only the shitty fake ones.
A lot of Christians would like to tell Trump to go take a flying leap. But they can hardly do that when progressive/leftist/Democrats are poking Christians with sharp sticks.
More childish excuses.
 
And yet, Jesus was capable of showing his anger.
Yes of course, but what did he get angry at? He didn't get angry at unbelievers. He didn't get angry at the gays or trans in the Roman Empire. He showed his anger at the money changers and those profiting in the temple. A modern equivalent would be Jesus showing his anger towards a presidential candidate hawking a 60-dollar Bible with his name on it. He also showed anger at those that didn't show compassion when they witnessed suffering.
 
Pastor Greg Laurie spoke at the Coachella Trump Rally in California and offered up a prayer to God for our Nation.



On SEPARATION OF CHURCH and STATE -



The objective of Jefferson in writing on that particular topic was to keep the government out of the church,
NOT to keep the church out of government!





If there really is a Hell, guaranteed, all of the disgusting religious charlatans the support Traitor Trump will eventually join him there.
 
We all know how Christians played a vital role in the 2016 election.



The 2016 presidential election cycle will long be remembered for the drama it created—including the social unrest that has taken place since Donald Trump was declared the winner.

The Republican victory shocked millions of Americans, but millions more were elated by the outcome—one that surprised the mainstream media and political pundits alike.

Religion played a significant role in the election, from the activity of dozens of national religious leaders, to the importance of various faith-related issues, to the high level of turnout among key segments of faith-driven voters.

This is the first of several summaries based on Barna Group’s election survey concerning the role that faith played in this historic political contest.


Evangelicals emerged as one of Donald Trump’s most ardent bases of support.
Nearly four out of five (79%) voted for Trump, compared to 18 percent siding with Hillary Clinton, providing the Republican candidate with better than a four-to-one margin.

Non-evangelical born again Christians also gave the President-elect a comfortable margin, 56 percent to 35 percent.
The remaining Christian-leaning segment, the notional Christians, essentially split their vote, providing Trump with a scant two-point preference (49% to 47%).


While the media have made a big deal about the prolific level of evangelical support won by Trump, the real story may be elsewhere.


Barna’s research indicates that perhaps the most significant faith group in relation to the Trump triumph was notional Christians.

These individuals – who consider themselves to be Christian, typically attend a Christian church, but are not born again – have supported the Democratic candidate in every election since 1996.


On average, notionals have given the Democratic candidate 58 percent of their votes.
That trend was broken this year as Hillary Clinton took just 47 percent of the group’s votes while Trump was awarded 49 percent.


Given that notionals are by far the largest of the five faith segments, that transition was a game changer for the Republicans.






Thus, we see Trump speaking to Christians, and Harris addressing the issue of faith in promoting her policies.
This election could be the most important election in the USA.


As we see the stark picture on what each candidate represents by their policies -

ALL CHRISTIANS have to galvanize again,
to do what is right by the LORD.





your lord wants you to worship a lying rapist? Strange god you got there.
 
If you don't want Christians voting for Trump, your party should have offered a better choice. Unfortunately, progressives love antagonizing Christians, and many other faiths as well. A lot of Christians would like to tell Trump to go take a flying leap. But they can hardly do that when progressive/leftist/Democrats are poking Christians with sharp sticks.
That is utter nonsense. In both the 2016 and 2024 primaries, there were multiple alternatives to Trump, yet y'all still chose him. White Evangelicals choose Trump in the primaries, in fact ya'll gave him more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history. Y'all chose him to be your candidate, so man up and own that. No one made you do it, y'all did it on your own.

He didn't have to be your candidate in 2016 and he didn't have to be your candidate again in 2024. As I pointed out, with stats, here: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/c-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-s.552467/post-1080465805
There is a cost to Evangelicals support of a man like Trump.
 
Yes of course, but what did he get angry at? He didn't get angry at unbelievers. He didn't get angry at the gays or trans in the Roman Empire. He showed his anger at the money changers and those profiting in the temple. A modern equivalent would be Jesus showing his anger towards a presidential candidate hawking a 60-dollar Bible with his name on it. He also showed anger at those that didn't show compassion when they witnessed suffering.

One can say that the commercialization and commodification of the Christian faith is very unfortunate, while simultaneously they can understand that "Go and sin no more" is a command and essential tenant of the doctrine of Christianity.

American Evangelical Christianity is an abomination of capitalism. An ideal society would be governed by a moral and competent elite that condemned materialism and the social excesses of liberalism -- neither of which benefit society, actually make people happy, or are conducive toward a moral lifestyle.

Or so Christians would say.
 
One can say that the commercialization and commodification of the Christian faith is very unfortunate, while simultaneously they can understand that "Go and sin no more" is a command and essential tenant of the doctrine of Christianity.

American Evangelical Christianity is an abomination of capitalism. An ideal society would be governed by a moral and competent elite that condemned materialism and the social excesses of liberalism -- neither of which benefit society, actually make people happy, or are conducive toward a moral lifestyle.

Or so Christians would say.
As a side note that passage you are quoting was not in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It was added at least 150 years later.
 
A lot of Christians would like to tell Trump to go take a flying leap. But they can hardly do that when progressive/leftist/Democrats are poking Christians with sharp sticks.
They have anonymity with their votes so can tell him to take a flying leap by voting for someone else if they lack the courage to publicly state their convictions. They fear being ostracized by their church and their communities not by imagined sharp sticks from progressive/leftist/Democrats. They choose church and community over god and country.
 
As a side note that passage you are quoting was not in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It was added at least 150 years later.
John 5:1-15
Romans 6:1-2
2 Corinthians 5:17

All passages with similar themes. Anyone who has taken time to read and actually digest scripture wouldn't contest this point. Quibbling about historicity specifically makes me question whether or not you plan to actually engage in good faith.

Many such cases with atheists, agnostics, etc. More interested in clever "gotchas!" (which often aren't clever at all) and dunking on room temperature IQ Evangelicals with reddit arguments.

That is utter nonsense. In both the 2016 and 2024 primaries, there were multiple alternatives to Trump, yet y'all still chose him. White Evangelicals choose Trump in the primaries, in fact ya'll gave him more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history. Y'all chose him to be your candidate, so man up and own that. No one made you do it, y'all did it on your own.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about -- on the surface, you're making a critique that points out Trump's degenerate, licentious, and dishonest behavior and how that behavior is completely to the contrary of Christian moral doctrine, so how could a so-called Christian vote for him? A fair criticism perhaps, but we both know it's one made totally in bad faith. If one of the great moral Christian monarchs were cloned and ran today as a right wing radical social conservative, he would be libeled fascist, bigot, immoral, etc. all the same.
 
They have anonymity with their votes so can tell him to take a flying leap by voting for someone else if they lack the courage to publicly state their convictions. They fear being ostracized by their church and their communities not by imagined sharp sticks from progressive/leftist/Democrats. They choose church and community over god and country.
It’s much worse than that. Many, not all, but many Evangelical churches have become dens of utterly unhinged conspiracy theories and they are often driven by the members in spite of the pastors. Trump’s extremist rhetoric is moderate compared to the mishmash of Qanon, extreme antivaxx, and utterly apocalyptic stuff you will hear in some Evangelical churches today. We are talking the COVID vaccines were the Mark of the Beast garbage.
 
John 5:1-15
Romans 6:1-2
2 Corinthians 5:17

All passages with similar themes. Anyone who has taken time to read and actually digest scripture wouldn't contest this point. Quibbling about historicity specifically makes me question whether or not you plan to actually engage in good faith.

Many such cases with atheists, agnostics, etc. More interested in clever "gotchas!" (which often aren't clever at all) and dunking on room temperature IQ Evangelicals with reddit arguments.



Here's another example of what I'm talking about -- on the surface, you're making a critique that points out Trump's degenerate, licentious, and dishonest behavior and how that behavior is completely to the contrary of Christian moral doctrine, so how could a so-called Christian vote for him? A fair criticism perhaps, but we both know it's one made totally in bad faith. If one of the great moral Christian monarchs were cloned and ran today as a right wing radical social conservative, he would be libeled fascist, bigot, immoral, etc. all the same.
I am Christian, I was merely pointing out that passage was added later it wasn’t in the original Gospel.

As to the rest of your argument, if we somehow cloned a Saint and ran them for president, a lot of people would think they were a socially conservative extreme socialist. Moreover, such an argument in my opinion is absurd because a saint born and raised in the modern world might still be a saint, but they wouldn’t hold the same social views they did in their time.

This is what we know, despite the early church existing in an empire where open homosexuality and transsexuality were very common, it wasn’t a focus of the early church. Paul mentions it twice, some of the later, early church fathers mentioned it a few times, but it obviously wasn’t a focus of the church. In fact, compared to the Jewish faith at the time and other religions in the Roman Empire, early Christians were pretty socially liberal for the time. They were much more like todays United Methodists or Anglicans than today’s ultra conservative denominations.
 
It’s much worse than that. Many, not all, but many Evangelical churches have become dens of utterly unhinged conspiracy theories and they are often driven by the members in spite of the pastors. Trump’s extremist rhetoric is moderate compared to the mishmash of Qanon, extreme antivaxx, and utterly apocalyptic stuff you will hear in some Evangelical churches today. We are talking the COVID vaccines were the Mark of the Beast garbage.
True and tragic and I hope that evangelicals specifically and mainstreams religions generally see an epic backlash for nurturing and spreading their corruptive evilness.
 
If you don't want Christians voting for Trump, your party should have offered a better choice. Unfortunately, progressives love antagonizing Christians, and many other faiths as well. A lot of Christians would like to tell Trump to go take a flying leap. But they can hardly do that when progressive/leftist/Democrats are poking Christians with sharp sticks.
How very Christ-like: vote for the devil to own the libs.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that if Christians tended to vote Democrat you'd be on your knees every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I know this is not directed at me, but personally, if the "Christians" (no true scotsman fallacy aside) that you are referring to had anywhere near the influence over Democrats that they currently have on the Republican party, I would not be voting for Democrats ever.

Anyhow thanks for the baseless projection. I am sure that I am not alone when I shake my head in disbelief over your inaccurate comment and think "You just do not get it at all"
 
Grow up.

It’s nobody’s fault but the morons that vote for Traitor Trump.

Only the shitty fake ones.

More childish excuses.
Party of personal responsibility indeed.

"I DIDN'T WANT TO IT'S YOUR FAULT I VOTED FOR DONALD"

What an emasculated position to take. But that's par for the course with far too many Trump apologists.
 
As to the rest of your argument, if we somehow cloned a Saint and ran them for president, a lot of people would think they were a socially conservative extreme socialist. Moreover, such an argument in my opinion is absurd because a saint born and raised in the modern world might still be a saint, but they wouldn’t hold the same social views they did in their time.

This is what we know, despite the early church existing in an empire where open homosexuality and transsexuality were very common, it wasn’t a focus of the early church. Paul mentions it twice, some of the later, early church fathers mentioned it a few times, but it obviously wasn’t a focus of the church. In fact, compared to the Jewish faith at the time and other religions in the Roman Empire, early Christians were pretty socially liberal for the time. They were much more like todays United Methodists or Anglicans than today’s ultra conservative denominations.

I generally agree with the bolded part, but totally reject the rest of the reply:

  • Homosexuality and transsexuality being "very common" in Rome: Total ahistorical garbage and there isn't any evidence to substantiate this claim. At best, we can say more perverse tastes were enjoyed by some of the Roman elite and aristocracy and even then, they often had to hide it. In fact, many Roman era historians bad jacketed emperors and politicians they viewed unfavorably by labeling them as perverse or homosexual. Why would they do that if this behavior was considered ubiquitous and socially acceptable?
  • Christians were "socially liberal" for the time: Apples and oranges here. How could they be "socially liberal" if liberalism and the enlightenment was over 1,500 years away? It would be more accurate to say Christianity was "progressive", but "progressive" does not inherently mean left wing or liberal. There have been many progressive right wing ideologies. Christianity is certainly distinct from Hellenism and Paganism, but it still adheres to classical themes of freedom, enlightenment, knowledge, etc. Catholic and Orthodox philosophers, theologists, and Church leaders throughout history have been commendably consistent on moral doctrine for like 2,000 years. That a particular issue enjoys more spotlight in a particular era says more about the circumstances we live in than it does about the laughable idea that early Christians were "social liberals".
 
I generally agree with the bolded part, but totally reject the rest of the reply:

  • Homosexuality and transsexuality being "very common" in Rome: Total ahistorical garbage and there isn't any evidence to substantiate this claim. At best, we can say more perverse tastes were enjoyed by some of the Roman elite and aristocracy and even then, they often had to hide it. In fact, many Roman era historians bad jacketed emperors and politicians they viewed unfavorably by labeling them as perverse or homosexual. Why would they do that if this behavior was considered ubiquitous and socially acceptable?
  • Christians were "socially liberal" for the time: Apples and oranges here. How could they be "socially liberal" if liberalism and the enlightenment was over 1,500 years away? It would be more accurate to say Christianity was "progressive", but "progressive" does not inherently mean left wing or liberal. There have been many progressive right wing ideologies. Christianity is certainly distinct from Hellenism and Paganism, but it still adheres to classical themes of freedom, enlightenment, knowledge, etc. Catholic and Orthodox philosophers, theologists, and Church leaders throughout history have been commendably consistent on moral doctrine for like 2,000 years. That a particular issue enjoys more spotlight in a particular era says more about the circumstances we live in than it does about the laughable idea that early Christians were "social liberals".
1. You are confusing commonplace with universally accepted. Homosexuality was common in Rome, at the same time people like to gossip and condemn others. For example, homosexuality was common and open in 1980s America and at the same time, it was common for people to insult gays and lesbians.

2. This is a semantics argument you are making. There have always been people and groups that were more socially open and tolerant than others around them.

Finally, outside of the basic statements of faith, much of what Christians argue about today, they always have.
 
If there's one sign of religion continuing to decline, then the evangelical support for Trump is a pretty big one. To compromise their values and the teachings of Christ in exchange for supporting a candidate so far from any Christian ideals should be really embarrassing, and that it isn't speaks volumes.
 
1. You are confusing commonplace with universally accepted. Homosexuality was common in Rome, at the same time people like to gossip and condemn others. For example, homosexuality was common and open in 1980s America and at the same time, it was common for people to insult gays and lesbians.

I mean sure, homosexual behavior has always existed. Maybe I misunderstood, but I took you saying that it was "very common" to mean there were many homosexuals and perhaps it was even socially tolerated, which there is no evidence for even prior to the death of Christ.

2. This is a semantics argument you are making. There have always been people and groups that were more socially open and tolerant than others around them.

It isn't semantics at all my friend. Christianity was more tolerant than Roman Paganism in some ways, but less tolerant than others. The ascension of Christianity in the Empire was a paradigm shift that altered the social fabric, particularly when the aristocracy took up the cross. To me, it doesn't make sense to call a change in ideology and ruling class a "socially liberal" movement, when liberalism wouldn't exist for over a thousand years. Using contemporary ideology to describe politics in antiquity just doesn't make sense in this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom