Don't Call yourself a Christian (if you're a Trumper)
STANV said:
He's trolling you. His comment is about calling someone by the gender they claim.
I knew that, but decided to try to keep the train on the rails.
STANV said:
Having said that the question is What is a Christian? Is it nothing more than the definition we had in my predominately Jewish neighborhood growing up. To us it meant either anyone who wasn't Jewish or someone who celebrated Christmas with a tree in their house or someone who believed that Jesus was "the son of God".
Any could apply, depending on what the topic of discussion is.
For this one, focusing on the evangelical Christians supporting Trump, the last definition, belief in the divinity of Jesus, is the one that I think applies.
someone on twitter made the point that Evangelical support for Trump is not universal. It's largely limited to white Evangelicals. Wonder why that is?
Nohero, you seem to have a proprietary view of who or what is Christian.
mtierney said:
Nohero, you seem to have a proprietary view of who or what is Christian.
So do "Christians".
nohero said:
Any could apply, depending on what the topic of discussion is.
For this one, focusing on the evangelical Christians supporting Trump, the last definition, belief in the divinity of Jesus, is the one that I think applies.
mtierney said:
Nohero, you seem to have a proprietary view of who or what is Christian.
I responded to Mr. Stanv by agreeing that any of his definitions could apply, depending on the topic.
Then I opined that "belief in the divinity of Jesus" seemed to be the definition to use for purposes of this discussion. That's not a "proprietary view", it's a well-known example of who to refer to as a Christian.
basil said:
I thought a christian was defined as being a follower of Jesus Christ
They must be baptized first. Hitler was baptized a catholic. The jails are full of people who were baptized, and who would call themselves Christian. The whole thing is a crock of horse excrement.
Jaytee said:
basil said:
I thought a christian was defined as being a follower of Jesus Christ
They must be baptized first. Hitler was baptized a catholic. The jails are full of people who were baptized, and who would call themselves Christian. The whole thing is a crock of horse excrement.
You are mistaking Catholicism for Christianity
basil said:
I thought a christian was defined as being a follower of Jesus Christ
Another definition to use, depending on the topic of the conversation.
basil said:
You are mistaking Catholicism for Christianity
No I’m not. Ask a catholic if he/she’s Christian.
One of my favorite dictionaries defines a Christian this way: “One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.”
basil said:
Every catholic is a christian, not every christian is a catholic.
Jaytee said Hitler was baptized as a Catholic. Jaytee didn’t say only Catholics were baptized.
Another dictionary entry:
Understanding. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant, who lived in a horse.
DaveSchmidt said:
basil said:
Every catholic is a christian, not every christian is a catholic.
Jaytee said Hitler was baptized as a Catholic. Jaytee didn’t say only Catholics were baptized.
I say this in a loving way, but you guys are idiots. The title of this topic is "don't call yourself a christian if you are a trumper". So far you have falsely claimed that every christian is a catholic, and that every christian is baptized. Both claims are false, but Ok. Then you said that Hitler was a catholic (and by your own warped logic, was a christian). So by your logic, trumpers can call themselves a christian, because hitler was a christian. I know you like to argue about literally everything, but do you really think this makes any sense?
basil said:
I say this in a loving way, but you guys are idiots. The title of this topic is "don't call yourself a christian if you are a trumper". So far you have falsely claimed that every christian is a catholic, and that every christian is baptized. Both claims are false, but Ok. Then you said that Hitler was a catholic (and by your own warped logic, was a christian). So by your logic, trumpers can call themselves a christian, because hitler was a christian. I know you like to argue about literally everything, but do you really think this makes any sense?
You just warped everything anybody said....and you make no sense.
It’s funny how on this board nit picking is the favorite past time.
Basil and Jaytee are right. You don’t have to be baptized to be a Christian, and not everyone who is baptized is a Christian. I was baptized so I could get married in the church my in-laws went to. I’m not even certain that was a real necessity, but the pastor wanted to see a certificate, so I went through it. But I’m not a Christian by any true means, other than believing in the Golden Rule.
basil said:
I say this in a loving way, but you guys are idiots.
You are mistaking idiocy for a horse.
ridski said:
But I’m not a Christian by any true means, other than believing in the Golden Rule.
You could be Jewish. From the Talmud:
"There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study."
nohero said:
You could be Jewish. From the Talmud:
"There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study."
I actually thought that as I was typing it, but didn't want to presume. Besides, it also makes me Confucian, Muslim, Hindu and Zoroastrian.
https://www.nrm.org/2018/03/golden-rule-common-religions/
I try to subscribe also to Wheaton's Law, but there are so many people that appear to test me on that, that it's nigh impossible to follow.
ridski said:
I try to subscribe also to Wheaton's Law, but there are so many people that appear to test me on that, that it's nigh impossible to follow.
With Catholics, we have a Sacrament for that.
"Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I violated Wheaton's law several times, by being a dick to some randos on the Internet."
"You're absolved. Go now and sin no more. Make it so."
Is Christianity something you are, or something you do? When we talk about people self-identifying as a particular gender, for instance, the implicit argument for inclusivity is that people don't choose their gender, and so to demand that someone who was born with male sexual organs but whose gender is female call themselves "male" is cruel -- they didn't choose their gender, they don't have the ability to switch to what others see as their "real" gender, and the demand is an impossible request that effectively denies their identity.
Is Christianity the same kind of identity, something you are born into rather than something actively chosen? That's certainly not the message I received growing up. There was a lot of emphasis on how one should act, on what kinds choices were consistent with a (Catholic) Christian identity and what kinds of choices ran counter to that.
To Morgana's point on abortion, I could understand, and even to a certain extent respect, people who say "I think Trump is terrible and in many ways un-Christian or even anti-Christian, but abortion is an important enough issue for me that, despite all that, I am voting for him." That's not what we've seen, though. His religious supporters aren't condemning his racism and cruelty and saying that they are voting for him despite this, they are actively supporting his most atrocious actions. At most, they express dismay over his "language." As if anyone gives a **** what ******* language you use when you're inflicting permanent, lifelong trauma on children whose crime was to be born the wrong color or nationality.
That's what's at issue here -- if they want to argue that "Christianity" as an identity is just a synonym for having white skin, speaking English, and decorating a tree in midwinter, and that's the extent of it, fine and good but they need to drop all this talk about God and morality and right and wrong. Because if Christian identity is an actual active identity, where you're expected to actually do things Jesus said like love your neighbor and feed the hungry and welcome the stranger, then I'd say Ridski who doesn't make any stronger claim than to try and follow the golden rule is a hell of a lot more Christian than they are.
Maybe politics isn't everything in life.
And maybe there are different points of view when it comes to politics. Obama is responsible for the deaths of countless people of color and the enslavement of many more. Many choose to not focus on those things. I'm not sure what the rules are, but I don't know how anyone calls themselves a liberal isn't disgusted with the Obama presidency. But then you'd have to focus on policy and not rhetoric.
terp said:
Maybe politics isn't everything in life.
And maybe there are different points of view when it comes to politics. Obama is responsible for the deaths of countless people of color and the enslavement of many more. Many choose to not focus on those things. I'm not sure what the rules are, but I don't know how anyone calls themselves a liberal isn't disgusted with the Obama presidency. But then you'd have to focus on policy and not rhetoric.
Speaking for myself, I saw Obama's actions as either being improvements or mitigating the bad effects of his predecessor's policies. As a citizen of a large and complex nation, especially one that is a global hegemon, that's my basic yardstick on presidents. And if you want to criticize me on the basis of my own self-professed criteria, it would be totally fair to try and do so. If, for instance, you want to try and argue that our involvement in Libya was morally equivalent to or even worse than the full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq, or that it was as bad or worse than the war with Iran McCain appeared to be promising, or that I was wrong to take McCain's threats against Iran seriously but should have anticipated Obama's involvement in Libya, feel free to try and make that argument.
That, after all, is my beef with Trump's Christian supporters -- that by their own criteria, they should not be supporting Trump. My problem with them is not that they do not support policy goals that I, as an American liberal, support. My problem is that they actively support goals and actions they themselves have claimed that they are opposed to, and then have the gall to wrap themselves in the mantle of faith and belief.
On Libya, I don't think Iraq is the right comparison. While we didn't declare war, Congress did bless that. Congress never blessed Libya. As people have been rioting for the rights of black people in this country, there is slave trade in Libya and nobody seems to care. He attacked the press like no other candidate. He surged in Afghanastan. He blew up Syria. He backed a genocidal war in Yemen. The man had a kill list and executed 2 American citizens. One of them was a 16 year old boy. And that's just off the top of my head.
How could anyone who calls themselves a liberal support that?
terp said:
On Libya, I don't think Iraq is the right comparison. While we didn't declare war, Congress did bless that. Congress never blessed Libya. As people have been rioting for the rights of black people in this country, there is slave trade in Libya and nobody seems to care. He attacked the press like no other candidate. He surged in Afghanastan. He blew up Syria. He backed a genocidal war in Yemen. The man had a kill list and executed 2 American citizens. One of them was a 16 year old boy. And that's just off the top of my head.
How could anyone who calls themselves a liberal support that?
If they thought the alternative would lead to worse outcomes?
I also would note that your own moral stance here is murky to me. You're not a pacifist -- you've come out strongly in favor of the second amendment and right to lethal force in self-defense. This is a stance that, of necessity, means accepting collateral injuries and deaths. I don't believe you are happy with all the suicides widespread gun ownership leads to, for instance, but I would guess that you see that as an unfortunate but acceptable price to pay in the name of individual liberty. Why you make the distinction between that and a government claiming to be acting in the collective right of self defense is not clear to me. I don't think that makes you a hypocrite or your beliefs insincere, I think it just points to the fact that the world is more complicated than elementary math problems.
Again speaking for myself, I am very ambivalent on the state's use of violence. I've tried to get some discussion on the issue started a few times on these boards but never really gotten any takers. I would very much like to believe world affairs could be free from violence. History makes me doubt that's actually possible. Could Nazism really have been defeated absent a world war? Could slavery have ever been ended without a civil war? I doubt it. But, on the flip side, did fighting fascism justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I doubt that, too. So I'm left with trying to pick the leaders that I think are likely to do less harm, and set the context for less violence. I was not thrilled with Obama's drone strikes, for instance, but I also do not think the threat of foreign terrorism would simply vanish. Would a McCain or Romney presidency have used less violence? I don't believe they would have, and so Obama was the clear choice for me there.
But again, this is very different from the critique I'm making of Christian support for Trump. As I mentioned upthread, if what we were hearing from his Christian supporters was that they do not approve of his racism and cruelty, but support him in spite of it because they believe goals like advancing anti-abortion laws are that important to them, I could understand even as I disagreed. It's the fact that so many actively support and celebrate his most cruel and un-Christian acts I find so offensive. I don't see any wrestling with moral complexities on their part, no expressions of doubt or ambivalence, just full-throated support.
I am a pacifist. I probably don't go as far as say Ghandi. I had no problem going after Bin Laden, but then we conflated Al Queda qpwith the Taliban and half heartedly went after him in Tora Bora(generals pleaded for more troops). So then we had to completely blow Afghanistan up.
I fail to see what invading Iraq, supporting Al Queda on Syria, overthrowing Gaddafi, supporting the Saudis in the massacre of the Houthis, etc does to stop terror.
I also domt believe the president should have a kill list, and certainly not one with American Citizens. I don't think the government should listen to all of our electronic communications. And I don't think real liberals should.
As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians. Trumps rhetoric may be bad, but he has not wreaked havoc on the world like his 2 predecessors did. In that way, maybe they support the lesser of evils here. To me evil is causing pain and death in the world where it doesn't need to exist. By that definition, is Trump evil? Probably. But he can't hold a candle to his two predecessors.
terp said:
I am a pacifist. I probably don't go as far as say Ghandi. I had no problem going after Bin Laden, but then we conflated Al Queda qpwith the Taliban and half heartedly went after him in Tora Bora(generals pleaded for more troops). So then we had to completely blow Afghanistan up.
I fail to see what invading Iraq, supporting Al Queda on Syria, overthrowing Gaddafi, supporting the Saudis in the massacre of the Houthis, etc does to stop terror.
I also domt believe the president should have a kill list, and certainly not one with American Citizens. I don't think the government should listen to all of our electronic communications. And I don't think real liberals should.
As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians. Trumps rhetoric may be bad, but he has not wreaked havoc on the world like his 2 predecessors did. In that way, maybe they support the lesser of evils here. To me evil is causing pain and death in the world where it doesn't need to exist. By that definition, is Trump evil? Probably. But he can't hold a candle to his two predecessors.
yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.
Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.
Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
He's trolling you. His comment is about calling someone by the gender they claim.
Having said that the question is What is a Christian? Is it nothing more than the definition we had in my predominately Jewish neighborhood growing up. To us it meant either anyone who wasn't Jewish or someone who celebrated Christmas with a tree in their house or someone who believed that Jesus was "the son of God".