|
Post by maya55555 on Sept 18, 2020 18:51:43 GMT
It was either this board or the Politics board:
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 19, 2020 0:16:05 GMT
Interesting. Hard to believe I'm just now finding this thread after five hours and no one has hit it.
My thoughts on this are complex.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 19, 2020 1:50:51 GMT
he is a lip service Presbyterian, so yes.
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Sept 19, 2020 2:29:19 GMT
It doesn't matter. To many "Christians" anyone who is against abortion is one of God's soldiers. They would vote for Lucifer himself if he promised to outlaw abortion. They might even worship him.
I forget who, but someone here made a comment that many "Christians" think they will go to hell if they vote Democrat, because Democrats support baby killin'. I honestly believe that is probably true, which brings me to my next point. Abortion is the only issue important to many "Christians". Never let anyone convince you otherwise. Like I said, they'd vote for Satan himself if they could just save those poor babies.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Sept 19, 2020 3:20:19 GMT
Sure. He's as much a Christian as everyone who calls themselves a Christian is.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Sept 19, 2020 5:04:55 GMT
Doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 19, 2020 11:49:06 GMT
I defer to Jesus Christ to determine that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 19, 2020 12:07:08 GMT
Bit of a tricky one. Culturally I would say sure (he was was raised Christian). Now is he a Christian in that he actually believes in the divinity of Christ? We can never truly know whats going on in someone's head, so the next best thing we can do is use inductive reasoning. Prior to running for President, he's never struck me as being particularly religious (he didn't really talk about religion, wasn't really a church going person). When he was pressed on the issue, he couldn't name a single Bible verse. That last one in particular gives me some doubt.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 19, 2020 13:33:42 GMT
It doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 19, 2020 13:36:37 GMT
Don`t know, don`t care.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 19, 2020 22:57:19 GMT
Why not? I mean I accept he is an abominable human being and huge amounts of what he does and says are what I would consider not Christian behaviour, but conversly most of the Christians on this board have a hard time accepting that I am a Christian, but when they mention it to me often someone will point out the no - true scotsman argument. I mean I dont want trump to be a Christian, much as there are people on the board that I would prefer were nto classified as Christian, but what is the definition that causes you to say definitively 'no'?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 19, 2020 23:36:50 GMT
Why not? I mean I accept he is an abominable human being and huge amounts of what he does and says are what I would consider not Christian behaviour, but conversly most of the Christians on this board have a hard time accepting that I am a Christian, but when they mention it to me often someone will point out the no - true scotsman argument. I mean I dont want trump to be a Christian, much as there are people on the board that I would prefer were nto classified as Christian, but what is the definition that causes you to say definitively 'no'? Anybody who does this is not a Christian. He cleared the park of protesters using tear gas and fucking helicopter. He wanted to use burn inducing microwaves on the people he swore an oath to God to protect and so he could wave a Bible around. He is not a follower of Jesus Christ. Let me add: He’s actually an Anti-Christian. Agreed. And he's an Anti-Nationalist too. Whether you love him or hate him, he's not what most people think he is.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 19, 2020 23:37:14 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Sept 20, 2020 5:18:20 GMT
The same people who thought Pres. Obama was a Muslim think the Republicans' president is a christian.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 8:57:26 GMT
There are very different people with very different beliefs that all call themselves "Christian." It is as the expression goes a "large tent." As I have noted before, there are people who believe opposite things and each of them calls themselves Christian. The term becomes useless in any very general context like this one. Only in conversations among people with a similar definition of the term will it have any meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 20, 2020 12:39:23 GMT
There are very different people with very different beliefs that all call themselves "Christian." It is as the expression goes a "large tent." As I have noted before, there are people who believe opposite things and each of them calls themselves Christian. The term becomes useless in any very general context like this one. Only in conversations among people with a similar definition of the term will it have any meaning. I'm well aware of the verities of religion. However, Trump is a Christian in the same way a woodpecker is a carpenter. I think that's a really good analogy. Trump is only after the bugs, the nourishment he can take, while having no genuine interest in the wood (Christianity) itself.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 12:56:15 GMT
There are very different people with very different beliefs that all call themselves "Christian." It is as the expression goes a "large tent." As I have noted before, there are people who believe opposite things and each of them calls themselves Christian. The term becomes useless in any very general context like this one. Only in conversations among people with a similar definition of the term will it have any meaning. I'm well aware of the verities of religion. However, Trump is a Christian in the same way a woodpecker is a carpenter. That good !?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 13:00:56 GMT
There are very different people with very different beliefs that all call themselves "Christian." It is as the expression goes a "large tent." As I have noted before, there are people who believe opposite things and each of them calls themselves Christian. The term becomes useless in any very general context like this one. Only in conversations among people with a similar definition of the term will it have any meaning. I'm well aware of the verities of religion. However, Trump is a Christian in the same way a woodpecker is a carpenter. I prefer to take people's expression of their religion at face value. If Trump insists he is a Christian then so be it, just not of a sort which others readily recognise or appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 14:22:57 GMT
I prefer to take people's expression of their religion at face value. If Trump insists he is a Christian then so be it, just not of a sort which others readily recognise or appreciate. That’s called being self-reflexive and if I were doing a liberal academic study, then yes, I take what a person says about their religious faith as being as is. I would not question it. He is a quite representative of the Christian Right as he does embody much of their outlook on life and relationship to power and wealth, how they see God, their patriotism, levels of compassion and empathy, and moral behavior, racism, etc. He is right there with them. But speaking as someone who does know what Jesus taught, he’s far from being a follower of Christ. To me personally, if they ain’t living it, they ain’t it. There are other ways to characterize Trump's base such as it might be. It seems they are the sort who do what they are told without questioning or understanding any of it. That means they have no way to convince others what should be done. They have rallies, not debates. They tend to depend on government forcing their views on others. It is not especially "scientific." That much is fair. It is however not especially "unscientific" either in that many of the political issues are quite beyond the scope of science anyway. Some, but certainly not most, such people might attempt to use the "because God said so" line of argument. Trump's base does not. It can be obvious that they depend more on fear of government and their prowess than fear of any god. It's more like, "because I said so, and yeah god, whatever." No, that is not a fair characterization of most religion. Religious people (except some strange "Christians") dislike depending on government or force. The big mistake is assuming truly religious people are characteristically unscientific. The opposite is true. The mistake is still depending on science before the Civil War to do something it never claimed anyway. The people who imagine themselves to be "scientific" for no more reason than that religion is beyond their reach are actually the bigger problem. They too cannot convince anyone of anything and turn to force of government. If you have guessed their views failed science, you are correct. If it really were "science" there would be no need to force it. Notice how "evolutionists" (who mistakenly believe religion opposes evolution) depend on ridiculous "rules" to "win." They say, "Sure tornadoes cannot assemble automobiles, but that is a 'false equivalence.'" Only a severely regimented mind could march in lockstep to such a ridiculous claim as "false equivalence." When no one is paying attention to real logic and science there is nothing sensible people can do but wait for it to crash. It isn't possible to have the problem child removed when the problem children hold the reigns of government. It was heading straight for a crash even before the pandemic and it cannot continue much longer.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 14:33:23 GMT
There are other ways to characterize Trump's base such as it might be. It seems they are the sort who do what they are told without questioning or understanding any of it. That means they have no way to convince others what should be done. They have rallies, not debates. They tend to depend on government forcing their views on others. It is not especially "scientific." That much is fair. It is however not especially "unscientific" either in that many of the political issues are quite beyond the scope of science anyway. Some, but certainly not most, such people might attempt to use the "because God said so" line of argument. Trump's base does not. It can be obvious that they depend more on fear of government and their prowess than fear of any god. It's more like, "because I said so, and yeah god, whatever." No, that is not a fair characterization of most religion. Religious people (except some strange "Christians") dislike depending on government or force. The big mistake is assuming truly religious people are characteristically unscientific. The opposite is true. The mistake is still depending on science before the Civil War to do something it never claimed anyway. The people who imagine themselves to be "scientific" for no more reason than that religion is beyond their reach are actually the bigger problem. They too cannot convince anyone of anything and turn to force of government. If you have guessed their views failed science, you are correct. If it really were "science" there would be no need to force it. Notice how "evolutionists" (who mistakenly believe religion opposes evolution) depend on ridiculous "rules" to "win." They say, "Sure tornadoes cannot assemble automobiles, but that is a 'false equivalence.'" Only a severely regimented mind could march in lockstep to such a ridiculous claim as "false equivalence." When no one is paying attention to real logic and science there is nothing sensible people can do but wait for it to crash. It isn't possible to have the problem child removed when the problem children hold the reigns of government. It was heading straight for a crash even before the pandemic and it cannot continue much longer. You know diddly squat about science and logic. And type of “Christian” I’m talking about have been around for 2,000 years. But I will say Trump is an Anti-Christian. Whatever Christ attempted to represent on this planet, Trump and his like minded cohorts are totally against it. Have you considered using all caps? Did I mention Christianity is a "large tent"? It has been a long time.
|
|