Red Letter Christians against Donald Trump

[eight bits]

6 minutes ago, Justice please said:

Yet she was messing around with a married man. I said, "I thought you were christian how can you do that?" She said,  "I am saved but his wife isn't so it's ok!" Later they got married! Go figure.

Hmm. I think the lady got Paul backwards. 1 Corinthians 7:12-14

Quote

But to the rest I—not the Lord—say, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, let him not leave her. The woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to live with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Damn, I should do this for money .

[Michelle]

22 minutes ago, Justice please said:

Totally agree with you. I believe they were raised like that. One woman I became friends with told me she was christian. Yet she was messing around with a married man. I said, "I thought you were christian how can you do that?" She said,  "I am saved but his wife isn't so it's ok!" Later they got married! Go figure.

You don't say where you are from. There are extremists in little small town pockets in the entire US. I'm not saying it isn't true...simply not common.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Justice please said:

I agree then next time someone asks a question you don't like ignore it. Simple as that! Yes you sound so loving and positive! When I looked into the dictionary I looked up the word  negativity and your picture was in it!

Hey!  At least the guy is consistent.  

[Michelle]

8 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Yes, it's incredibly sad these beliefs are not with you because they are known to be true, it's that they were forced on you at a very vulnerable and impressionable age

Don't feel bad for me. I rejected religion at the age of twelve. It was fine with my parents because I was always allowed to make my own choices.

I know that is hard for some opinionated people to believe, but it's the truth whether you like it or not. They also accepted my gay friends, which may astonish you.

[Justice please]

1 hour ago, Michelle said:

You don't say where you are from. There are extremists in little small town pockets in the entire US. I'm not saying it isn't true...simply not common.

I live in California. USA

[Justice please]

52 minutes ago, and then said:

Hey!  At least the guy is consistent.  

yes so true.

[Justice please]

20 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Don't feel bad for me. I rejected religion at the age of twelve. It was fine with my parents because I was always allowed to make my own choices.

I know that is hard for some opinionated people to believe, but it's the truth whether you like it or not. They also accepted my gay friends, which may astonish you.

I love that your parents were like that. You get to have your own opinion on things.

[Michelle]

4 minutes ago, Justice please said:

I love that your parents were like that. You get to have your own opinion on things.

I grew up in the 60's and 70's. Everyone thought my parents were cool. I had three older siblings who broke them in. 

[+and-then]

44 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Don't feel bad for me. I rejected religion at the age of twelve. It was fine with my parents because I was always allowed to make my own choices.

I know that is hard for some opinionated people to believe, but it's the truth whether you like it or not. They also accepted my gay friends, which may astonish you.

That's my primary quirk when dealing with God haters.  It isn't their choice, it's their seeming desire to bully anyone that doesn't share their outlook on the world.  Live and let live.  To each his own.  I don't attempt to vilify those who don't believe.  I don't agree with their choice but I recognize their right to it.  Religious zealots who take the polar opposite stance and assume a need to do battle with their unbelief are just as misguided, IMO, as the Dawkins crowd.  We each have a choice.  It is ours alone.  

[XenoFish]

I don't think it's so much "god-hate" as it is religion hate. Some religious people try to "strong arm" their beliefs down others throats and are quite venomous. Especially when others do not conform to their reality. The reality of a god type things existence is really unimportant. What is important is the damage that the human created god/s are used for. Every religion is a box with holes in it. Every religion is man made. Not one single spiritual belief system is correct. Some of them are toxic. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 hours ago, and then said:

I don't attempt to vilify those who don't believe.  I don't agree with their choice but I recognize their right to it. 

Here's the thing, I really don't think belief is a choice. Or as I looked at it on this site:  

Quote

But this does not mean that today's religious skeptics choose not to believe. Instead, we can see that personal secularity is primarily the result of brain function combined with access to knowledge, information, and a social setting allowing disbelief. Given the right conditions, the result will be an individual who does not accept supernatural explanations.

Using me as an example, I didn't grow up in any religious setting. My family never went to continuous weekly religious meetings or had any religious book in the house. So, for me to believe in the various orthodox religions, I never had any 'ground work' or or such growing up to have me believe in it. And since, I really never saw anything during my life, (that would be considered outside of the religious setting) there is nothing that shows it can be believed. 

I don't 'choose' to not believe in it, there is just no proof for me to do so. I don't believe, because there is no reason for it. As for other stuff, paranormal stuff, I personally believe in it (so, so ) because I saw and experienced stuff that would have me believe that over orthodox religious ideals. 

 

[Farmer77]

8 hours ago, Justice please said:

This surprized me I thought all Christians followed one another in ideas.

God damn its about time. The cognitive dissonance required for a Christian to support Trump must be crushing.

[Justice please]

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

God damn its about time. The cognitive dissonance required for a Christian to support Trump must be crushing.

Very true Farmer 77.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Justice please said:

Very true Farmer 77.

So Christians aren't allowed to make a choice of the lesser of two evils?  That's kind of narrow-minded, don't you think?  Many Christians believe that simply surrendering to the agenda of the Left is tantamount to surrendering our country to a greater evil.  I certainly feel that way.   The fact that this group in Lynchburg could only muster 350 attendees over a few nights is proof enough of the impact and reach they have.  They seem to be another group of Left-wing Trump haters.  I'm sure that some of them are sincere in their protests and I have no problem with them.  To assume that they represent some large fraction of Christians is negated by the evidence.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Here's the thing, I really don't think belief is a choice. Or as I looked at it on this site:  

Using me as an example, I didn't grow up in any religious setting. My family never went to continuous weekly religious meetings or had any religious book in the house. So, for me to believe in the various orthodox religions, I never had any 'ground work' or or such growing up to have me believe in it. And since, I really never saw anything during my life, (that would be considered outside of the religious setting) there is nothing that shows it can be believed. 

I don't 'choose' to not believe in it, there is just no proof for me to do so. I don't believe, because there is no reason for it. As for other stuff, paranormal stuff, I personally believe in it (so, so ) because I saw and experienced stuff that would have me believe that over orthodox religious ideals. 

 

As I said, I have no problem with what others choose to believe.  ALL belief is a choice.  You are saying that your criteria for choosing means it isn't a choice?  You're torturing the language a bit.  Say rather that your choice doesn't involve faith and I can agree.

[Justice please]

37 minutes ago, and then said:

As I said, I have no problem with what others choose to believe.  ALL belief is a choice.  You are saying that your criteria for choosing means it isn't a choice?  You're torturing the language a bit.  Say rather that your choice doesn't involve faith and I can agree.

Thank you everyone for your honest opinions and was very informative for me. I believe you all gave me good answers to my questions Goodbye everyone and have a great evening.

[eight bits]

@Stubbly_Dooright and @and then

Perhaps the reconciliation is that AT's emphasis was on "villifying" those who believe differently. To villify is a behavior, something which is based on belief, an expression of a belief, but not something which is itself just a belief. Behavior and expression of beliefs are, I think, fairly described as matters of choice. The underlying belief, however, feels persuasive or not, without the person choosing.

Similarly, when one of the memes to which AT was replying suggests that "staying with" a cradle religious affiliation is a choice, I think that is only approximately correct. I can choose whether to undertake a good hard critical look at my lifelong beliefs, but I can't really choose how that inquiry will turn out. The meme, however, may have been produced by somebody who assumes that rejection of religion is inevitable whenever a believer examines religion "critically." That's simply not so, not theoretically and not empirically.

Looking at the Trump-evangelical "paradox," it seems natural enough to me. A key hard-line Protestant view is that everybody is a sinner (except Jesus); it is not as if any alternative to Trump would not also be a sinner. Further, the evangelicals revere the Jewish Bible more than most Gentiles, and what's the narrative line of the Jewish Bible? God chooses imperfect people to be the heroes of salvation history. David in particular is both a pivotal champion of God and a profoundly flawed man. Prominent among his flaws is sexual immorality. In David's case, that's taken to the extreme of murder of a husband to gain the favors of the widow, because he can. Trump's locker room talk about grabbing women by the privates or hiring porn stars as prostitutes, because he can, pales in comparison with David.

 

 

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Looking at the Trump-evangelical "paradox," it seems natural enough to me. A key hard-line Protestant view is that everybody is a sinner (except Jesus); it is not as if any alternative to Trump would not also be a sinner. Further, the evangelicals revere the Jewish Bible more than most Gentiles, and what's the narrative line of the Jewish Bible? God chooses imperfect people to be the heroes of salvation history. David in particular is both a pivotal champion of God and a profoundly flawed man. Prominent among his flaws is sexual immorality. In David's case, that's taken to the extreme of murder of a husband to gain the favors of the widow, because he can. Trump's locker room talk about grabbing women by the privates or hiring porn stars as prostitutes, because he can, pales in comparison with David.

That is a very thought provoking response. I do however feel that the preceding decades' worth of rhetoric and attempted legislation regarding morality kinda makes the point moot. The folks formerly known as the "moral majority" has ceded morality in order to try and control the majority.

 

[SHaYap]

49 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Prominent among his flaws is sexual immorality. In David's case, that's taken to the extreme of murder of a husband to gain the favors of the widow, because he can. Trump's locker room talk about grabbing women by the privates or hiring porn stars as prostitutes, because he can, pales in comparison with David.

It is poor excuses nonetheless,  THe Kingdom, the Temple and the Tribe didn't do too well all the way through to Solomon's shenanigans also. Perhaps the lessons weren't emphasized properly or is it that they never learned or Yahweh didn't care enough to love them for the right reasons?

~

[Stubbly_Dooright]

@and then

Quote

10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Here's the thing, I really don't think belief is a choice. Or as I looked at it on this site:  

Using me as an example, I didn't grow up in any religious setting. My family never went to continuous weekly religious meetings or had any religious book in the house. So, for me to believe in the various orthodox religions, I never had any 'ground work' or or such growing up to have me believe in it. And since, I really never saw anything during my life, (that would be considered outside of the religious setting) there is nothing that shows it can be believed. 

I don't 'choose' to not believe in it, there is just no proof for me to do so. I don't believe, because there is no reason for it. As for other stuff, paranormal stuff, I personally believe in it (so, so ) because I saw and experienced stuff that would have me believe that over orthodox religious ideals. 

 

As I said, I have no problem with what others choose to believe.  ALL belief is a choice.  You are saying that your criteria for choosing means it isn't a choice?  You're torturing the language a bit.  Say rather that your choice doesn't involve faith and I can agree.

Oh boy,............................

I want to see how you think all belief is a choice. 

Quote

You are saying that your criteria for choosing means it isn't a choice?  You're torturing the language a bit. 

Actually, I think the way you're using the language is torturing it a bit. I don't think I am saying that it's my criteria for choosing, I'm saying that it's my criteria for not believing. (I'm not saying I'm choosing to believe, I'm saying I cannot. See, no choosing there.) I feel, if you reread what I said, you'll see that. 

I can't, in any way, stop you for 'believing' that all belief is a choice, because that would be wrong of me. But, I can disagree in how you want me to see it, in which I don't. (If that is the case.) Then this, has to be the finale thought in this part of the discussion that you see it as it is, but I don't. To explain your 'behavior' towards another (me, for example that seems to fit the ideals here) and expect me to see it the same way, I strongly disagree and will not respect it. I thought seeing my side of how I could be 'treated' and for what reason, would open up a 'fyi' on how others view it from a different side. 

Quote

Say rather that your choice doesn't involve faith and I can agree.

Well, that is what I'm talking about, (if I get what you mean) There's no faith in it, because my life experiences to show actual proof that is the reason I don't believe (in the usual orthodox beliefs and faiths) Yes, I'm saying that the reason to not believe has no 'faith basis' for it. But, in actual looking at something, anything, as faith, I would probably need my own non-faith way (my proof) to believe. Hence, the coming to a belief outlook (in orthodox beliefs) is an outcome, a reaction. So there for, not a choice. 

@eight bits

Quote

Perhaps the reconciliation is that AT's emphasis was on "villifying" those who believe differently. To villify is a behavior, something which is based on belief, an expression of a belief, but not something which is itself just a belief. Behavior and expression of beliefs are, I think, fairly described as matters of choice. The underlying belief, however, feels persuasive or not, without the person choosing.

I think, you're saying it very wonderfully well in how I see it.   In fact, I would probably say 'bingo'!   

I can choose in how I react in how I believe or not, but yes, even if I stayed solid as a statue in appearance like Mr. Spock, as an example, what I feel from my proof, is still uncontrolled because I can't help not believing due to a lifetime of not seeing something that it is to be 'believed', ie: the proof of it. 

I mean, And Then can say and believe that belief is a choice, while I still think, it is not. 

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Similarly, when one of the memes to which AT was replying suggests that "staying with" a cradle religious affiliation is a choice, I think that is only approximately correct. I can choose whether to undertake a good hard critical look at my lifelong beliefs, but I can't really choose how that inquiry will turn out. The meme, however, may have been produced by somebody who assumes that rejection of religion is inevitable whenever a believer examines religion "critically." That's simply not so, not theoretically and not empirically.

I'm probably going to chalk this up to my slight learning disability, but I get most of what you are saying here. If I am getting it correctly, I don't understand how it's simply not so, where the rejection of a religion when ever a believer examines religion "critically". I do feel, that it is inevitable, because (and I like your way of examining it and using this) I do agree that critically examing it, is a choice. 

Though, thinking about it right now, I can see how there might be some misunderstanding here, well at least by me.   I wonder, if even the act of critically examining it, is also a reaction. 

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Looking at the Trump-evangelical "paradox," it seems natural enough to me. A key hard-line Protestant view is that everybody is a sinner (except Jesus); it is not as if any alternative to Trump would not also be a sinner. Further, the evangelicals revere the Jewish Bible more than most Gentiles, and what's the narrative line of the Jewish Bible? God chooses imperfect people to be the heroes of salvation history. David in particular is both a pivotal champion of God and a profoundly flawed man. Prominent among his flaws is sexual immorality. In David's case, that's taken to the extreme of murder of a husband to gain the favors of the widow, because he can. Trump's locker room talk about grabbing women by the privates or hiring porn stars as prostitutes, because he can, pales in comparison wit

Well, I think, this is taken into extremes to see someone in how they want to, if it's furthering their goals. In which, I think I see what the point of the article is about. Despite the thought I consider, that there should be no religious goal in which our president should not 'favor' when being a president of a secular (no religion over another or religion over none) country. I really don't think religion should play into this at all. So, I feel that main person in the article is wrong in thinking about really buffing their beliefs (no matter how I respect them for being true to them) as part of this country's outlook. I think it's more respectful for them to want what they believe is true about their beliefs to be represented and represented properly. I just think, just trying to get the message across, that there should be more non-religious priorities that should be messaged across. 

In while, I can understand not wanting to see the president and his particular religious camp not misskew his behavior that seems to be contradicting to various religious ideals, I would like it to be known, that certain behaviors of his, be still rejected. My point being that his extra-marital affairs, (if proven) and his lies (if shown) and the like be shown as not desired on an ethical outlook. 

Yes, if the president happens to taut a religion, then I don't blame those in the religion wanting to have it tauted (  ) in the correct way. But, in a nutshell, act accordingly really, and not acting the opposite. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 hours ago, and then said:

That's my primary quirk when dealing with God haters.  It isn't their choice, it's their seeming desire to bully anyone that doesn't share their outlook on the world. 

This is my primary quirk with American Christians who complain about 'God haters': the bending over backwards to absurdly cry persecution in a country where ~75% of people are Christians and non-believers are barely represented as members of our govt's leadership.

14 hours ago, and then said:

Live and let live. 

Great sentiment, but given our history Christians can go first on putting it into practice.

[GoldenWolf]

16 hours ago, and then said:

I don't attempt to vilify those who don't believe.

You would be like one in a million. 

[GoldenWolf]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This is my primary quirk with American Christians who complain about 'God haters': the bending over backwards to absurdly cry persecution in a country where ~75% of people are Christians and non-believers are barely represented as members of our govt's leadership.

Great sentiment, but given our history Christians can go first on putting it into practice.

Jesus schizophrenia has def. rubbed off on them.

[eight bits]

On 12/28/2018 at 10:23 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If I am getting it correctly, I don't understand how it's simply not so, where the rejection of a religion when ever a believer examines religion "critically". I do feel, that it is inevitable, because (and I like your way of examining it and using this) I do agree that critically examing it, is a choice. 

For the lack of inevitability, I am going by a number of things. First and foremost, there are lots of reports of believers undergoing spontaneous "crises of faith" where they become "disenchanted" and during that time, give their lifelong faith commitment a good looking over. That can be a short-lived crisis (grieving for a lost loved one, but when life resumes normalcy, faith returns, too) to elaborate, decades-long spiritual journeys. But a lot come back to their initial faith eventually. I suppose they could all be doing "critical thinking" wrong, but then other people who make otherwise similar reports don't come back, or maybe they durably adopt some faith commitment which is much different from their cradle commitment.

Second, we have a growing body of results from movements like "street epistemology." The original idea (in Peter Boghossian's book called A Manual for Creating Atheists) was that encounters with good epistemology (critical thinking about uncertain propositions) somehow would reliably produce agreement with atheism, of all things. Of course, maybe it is inevitable that an atheist epistemologist would believe that but it just doesn't seem to be so. (Not that SE isn't very interesting, and I still enjoy keeping current with the video adventures on YouTube of Anthony Magnabosco, who now has his own book, God bless him).

Finally, I have my own commitments. I'm agnostic, and I wouldn't be if I thought (theistic) religion would necessarily yield to critical examination. I think that my agnosticism arises from critical thinking about religious issues, and it hasn't (yet?) led to my rejection of (theistic) religion.

Edited December 29, 2018 by eight bits

[danydandan]

Guys...... WTF are red letter Christians? 

They aren't similar to red hand Christians are they?