Christianity and Trump

[Atreus21]

Dear god please get rid of Religion.

It would solve many of our civilizations problems.

No, no it really wouldn't. It's just another scapegoat.

The anti-Christian tilt around here lately is making some otherwise normal people say really, really stupid things.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Huh?

If you know about the law and how it applies then you should know what I was talking about. There's this link that people occasionally attempt to force on Christians which really isn't there. No one is compelled to stone anyone. Usually it's the scripture you picked or the one about not bringing peace but a sword to set brother upon brother. If the context isn't understood then one can claim anything.

 

[emperus]

It's not clear at all.

Matthew 5:38-42 KJV, copied

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

but wait, there's multiple instances in the Old Testament referencing eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. So no, not everything in the OT should be adhered to.

edit: triple teamed lol

There's a lot of commentaries out there which would help for a fuller understanding. It's also helpful to understand that these are translations of translations of the Bible so the meaning of some words is often not fully communicated in their translation.

But, basically, Christ came to fulfill the laws, meaning he came to give a better understanding to them by his life and words. So he is telling people that the Fuller "understanding" of the laws he has given are how we should understand the laws from now on.

 

[emperus]

Double post

 

[OutHouse]

lol realibrad owned.

 

[dainthomas]

Complete baloney. As I quoted in another thread that was peddling this, from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops :

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-refugees-and-travelers/refugee-resettlement/

In partnership with its affiliates, and the United States Department of State/Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, USCCB/MRS resettles approximately 30% of the refugees that arrive in the U.S. each year. The Catholic refugee resettlement network includes over 100 diocesan offices across the country and in Guam and Puerto Rico.

That's cherry picking. The catholic church is far more pro-immigration than probably any other Christian denomination. I'd say a majority of protestants are of the anti-immigrant/refugee type.

And as stated earlier, again, in the other thread, Christians voted for Trump not because they went looking for him, but because the alternative was Hillary Clinton.

Anyone who voted for an abusive, lying, swindling adulterer is a poor Christian no matter the alternative.

 

[sandorski]

Uh, prove that, because it sounds like complete BS.

https://www.chausa.org/about/about/facts-statistics

Comprised of more than 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the Catholic health ministry is the largest group of nonprofit health care providers in the nation. Every day, one in six patients in the U.S. is cared for in a Catholic hospital.



And more complete BS. Prove that too. Prove that Christians were committing widespread persecution of minorities and others prior to some Governmental savior putting a stop to them.

European history is full of it. From Protestant v Catholic wars, to Protestant v Protestant wars. Even in the 13 Colonies there were armed conflicts between Christian groups. Then there was the Inquisition and numerous other smaller incidents like the Salem Witch trials.

 

[realibrad]

If you know about the law and how it applies then you should know what I was talking about. There's this link that people occasionally attempt to force on Christians which really isn't there. No one is compelled to stone anyone. Usually it's the scripture you picked or the one about not bringing peace but a sword to set brother upon brother. If the context isn't understood then one can claim anything.

What point do you think I have tried to make in this thread?

I said that the bible is broad and has conflicting things in it. When someone said that Jesus had established a new covenant and thus the old laws were removed. Clearly that cannot follow logically because Jesus states otherwise with the quote I gave. I fail to see what you are talking about, because you have not explained it.

Jesus came as a way to get people back into heaven. Remember this part from my quote...

"until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"

So unless you think all has been accomplished, then the old laws still stand.

 

[MajinCry]

Yeah, Jesus didn't make the old laws void. His purpose was to detail the seventh covenant, which will be put in effect in accordance to Jeremiah 31:31-34. Those verses state that the seventh covenant will only come into effect, when every single man, woman and child follows the OT laws to a T.

Then they don't need to be followed, as everybody is already living in accordance to them. No need to beat the horse when it's been trained.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What point do you think I have tried to make in this thread?

I said that the bible is broad and has conflicting things in it. When someone said that Jesus had established a new covenant and thus the old laws were removed. Clearly that cannot follow logically because Jesus states otherwise with the quote I gave. I fail to see what you are talking about, because you have not explained it.

Jesus came as a way to get people back into heaven. Remember this part from my quote...

"until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"

So unless you think all has been accomplished, then the old laws still stand.

Yes "all" was accomplished. That's part of the Christian faith which you can find. Jesus was the fulfilment of the law in his life, death and resurrection.

 

[emperus]

What point do you think I have tried to make in this thread?

I said that the bible is broad and has conflicting things in it. When someone said that Jesus had established a new covenant and thus the old laws were removed. Clearly that cannot follow logically because Jesus states otherwise with the quote I gave. I fail to see what you are talking about, because you have not explained it.

Jesus came as a way to get people back into heaven. Remember this part from my quote...

"until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"

So unless you think all has been accomplished, then the old laws still stand.

Why do you believe it is conflicting? One is called the OLD testament and the other the NEW. In the NEW the son of GOD (Jesus) comes and restates the laws in the way he believes we should understand them.

simplistic example: A federal court gives their interpretation of a law. It goes to the Supreme Court which doesn't agree in some contexts and renders their interpretation of the law. They didn't throw out the law, but gave a fuller context to it. Is there a conflict in the law because both a Federal Court and the Supreme Court both rendered judgement? No, the Supreme Courts interpretation is the new law of the land.

Honestly, not sure what we are arguing. A Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Christ (Christ-ian). There is little conflict if one is following what Christ says (which is outlined in Mathew 5 and the rest of the Gospels).

 

[MrSquished]

anyone can CALL themselves a Christian

 

[jackstar7]

No, no it really wouldn't. It's just another scapegoat.

The anti-Christian tilt around here lately is making some otherwise normal people say really, really stupid things.

Always a victim. It's not anti-Christian. It's anti-religion.

The roots are the same in all of them and as a species, we have outgrown the need for it. We don't need that kind of tribalism, those kind of laws (governing food, clothes, proper washing, etc.), nor the very idea of an afterlife.

We don't need those things.

 

[realibrad]

Yes "all" was accomplished. That's part of the Christian faith which you can find. Jesus was the fulfilment of the law in his life, death and resurrection.

So you think that Jesus existing was fulfillment of the laws? He broke many laws while he was alive. At what point did he fulfill the laws? Further, does it then mean that if Jesus did not talk about it in the New testament that it's not something to follow?

I was always taught that Jesus was to fulfill the laws that prohibited people getting into heaven.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm very curious, who taught you that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you think that Jesus existing was fulfillment of the laws? He broke many laws while he was alive. At what point did he fulfill the laws? Further, does it then mean that if Jesus did not talk about it in the New testament that it's not something to follow?

I was always taught that Jesus was to fulfill the laws that prohibited people getting into heaven.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. His birth was part of prophesy as was his death to make atonement, found in Isiah and elsewhere I believe. Jesus said that he was the lord of the sabbath and other things to indicate that the old covenent was past. Jesus was the atonement for humanity and the resurrection was a promise of eternal life.

That's the general gist of Christianity as practiced by most Christians. The problem is that those who call themselves followers are obliged to follow certain principles and hate isn't one of them. Also just saying "forgive me" isn't sufficient unless there is repentance, an understanding that wrong was done and an effort to not repeat mistakes made.

There's also a verse to the effect of "by their fruits you shall know them", those who are genuine. I see none of that with Trump and supporters.

 

[MajinCry]

Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. His birth was part of prophesy as was his death to make atonement, found in Isiah and elsewhere I believe. Jesus said that he was the lord of the sabbath and other things to indicate that the old covenent was past. Jesus was the atonement for humanity and the resurrection was a promise of eternal life.

That's the general gist of Christianity as practiced by most Christians. The problem is that those who call themselves followers are obliged to follow certain principles and hate isn't one of them. Also just saying "forgive me" isn't sufficient unless there is repentance, an understanding that wrong was done and an effort to not repeat mistakes made.

There's also a verse to the effect of "by their fruits you shall know them", those who are genuine. I see none of that with Trump and supporters.

Sorry dude, Jesus didn't get rid of the laws. He's the beacon that people are supposed to be drawn to, in order to fulfill this prophecy:

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jer 31.31-34

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Until everybody is a Christian that worships Jesus and follows the OT, only then will that seventh covenant come into place. You'll notice that the chapter is called "The New Covenant".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry dude, Jesus didn't get rid of the laws. He's the beacon that people are supposed to be drawn to, in order to fulfill this prophecy:

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jer 31.31-34


Until everybody is a Christian that worships Jesus and follows the OT, only then will that seventh covenant come into place. You'll notice that the chapter is called "The New Covenant".

Well that's you opinion which is at odds with virtually every school of theological thought. Christians don't have to stone anyone. Jesus sure didn't

 

[Paratus]

Anyone who voted for an abusive, lying, swindling adulterer is a poor Christian no matter the alternative.

I think you are confusing Christians who worship Jesus with those who worship conservative Jesus.

Besides for single issue fundamentalists all it takes is a little pillow talk (guns, abortions, immigrants, etc) by a golden tongued politician and they'll give it up faster than a drunk teenager on prom night.

 

[MajinCry]

Well that's you opinion which is at odds with virtually every school of theological thought. Christians don't have to stone anyone. Jesus sure didn't

Jesus isn't man, he's Yahweh's avatar and son. Man, on the other hand, isn't perfect. We're beholden to the sixth covenant. Like, if the conditions of the seventh covenant have been met, I'd like to know.

So far, they haven't been. OT Is still to be followed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Jesus isn't man, he's Yahweh's avatar and son. Man, on the other hand, isn't perfect. We're beholden to the sixth covenant. Like, if the conditions of the seventh covenant have been met, I'd like to know.

So far, they haven't been. OT Is still to be followed.

That's your personal beliefs and that's OK. The rest are free to follow Christ if they wish. Again no Christian is called to kill apostates or stone an adulterer. Sorry.

 

[MajinCry]

That's your personal beliefs and that's OK. The rest are free to follow Christ if they wish. Again no Christian is called to kill apostates or stone an adulterer. Sorry.

Chapter and verse. Where are the conditions for the seventh covenant met?

 

[disappoint]

Salt and Light
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

You salty ass mofos need Jesus.

 

[agent00f]

I started going to church recently. I'm not a believer. However, I find the stories interesting and Jesus's teachings to be moral and good for the most part. He was also a highly intelligent man that was amazing at making the Roman's look stupid which is amusing. As I've listened to the sermons, I've noticed that Jesus would have been highly liberal. He spoke of tolerance for all man, loving your neighbor, he gave aid to travelers from far away lands, he fought against capitalism run amok, he fought against excess for the ruling class, and he taught people to forgive.

He seems like an awesome man that would run a country from a position of empathy and would care how the people felt.

However, the right who are high christian seem to have very strange positions on a lot of issues when looking at what the teachings of Jesus actually are. They do not like social programs. They are not very tolerant of gay marriage or any LGBTQ issues. They are adamant that we should keep people out of our country, especially those from poorer countries. They would even turn away refugees who have no home from war torn areas of the world! I've seen people on the right call 13yo girls who had an abortion murderers. They'd prefer the government to force a woman to be pregnant even if she was raped (a man forces the conception and the government forces the pregnancy, how tragic!) And the list goes on.

Then we have Trump who is 100% opposite of Jesus. He casts stones. He is supremely narcissistic. He'd punish a woman for having an abortion. He spoke of banning immigration based on religion and actually tried to institute the ban. His life has been one of the pursuit of monetary gain and excess. He's spoke of exploiting his celebrity to sexually assault women. He has demonstrated zero empathy.

I'm just wondering how most Christians reconcile this, both their political positions and their support for Trump. Jesus was a man of empathy while Trump is a man of himself. They are polar opposite. I'm no believer in God or Jesus being a manifestation of God, but I'd love to have a man that has the qualities and values of Jesus take the helm.

Many, not all, cloak themselves with a religion more as a means to falsely elevate themselves above others - ie. 'the chosen people', 'the faithful' etc. Rather than out of finding a personal alignment of principles in common with their religion's teachings. It's a good way for an asshole(s) to kid themselves and others they're not just that.

As per Christianity. It gives you an easy out. Be a pos, go in the box and tell the priest you were a pos. It's all good, paradise still awaits. The whole forgiveness thing can be turned into absolving ones self of personal responsibility.

These are not universals imo, there are decent people you meet who really adhere to just the positive messaging of the various faiths, isolated from the ugly messages. I don't see this as any vindication for faith mythologies though. This would still be true with or without religion. If there is one thing religion has shown, it does nothing to prevent people from being shitty to one another, and often gives a reason to do just that. There would be positive people with or without the myths, just like there are plenty of decent people who enjoy helping others right now that don't go in for faith based thinking.

There's a certain practical/legit point to religion and it's hardly all bad. It was basically a form of social cohesion before ethics was codified/formalized through the state. It's only in historical "modern" post-enlightenment times that's it's been gradually superseded by scholarly ideals adopted by the state.

As to why "serious" practice of it is often associated with conservatism, it makes perfect sense given they stem from similarly basis of traditionalism, ie. old even archaic ways are best and loyalty trumps all. In that sense Jesus was hardly conservative at all and if anything supremely liberal for his time.

 

[agent00f]

So you think that Jesus existing was fulfillment of the laws? He broke many laws while he was alive. At what point did he fulfill the laws? Further, does it then mean that if Jesus did not talk about it in the New testament that it's not something to follow?

I was always taught that Jesus was to fulfill the laws that prohibited people getting into heaven.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. His birth was part of prophesy as was his death to make atonement, found in Isiah and elsewhere I believe. Jesus said that he was the lord of the sabbath and other things to indicate that the old covenent was past. Jesus was the atonement for humanity and the resurrection was a promise of eternal life.

That's the general gist of Christianity as practiced by most Christians. The problem is that those who call themselves followers are obliged to follow certain principles and hate isn't one of them. Also just saying "forgive me" isn't sufficient unless there is repentance, an understanding that wrong was done and an effort to not repeat mistakes made.

There's also a verse to the effect of "by their fruits you shall know them", those who are genuine. I see none of that with Trump and supporters.

Arguing about what Jesus Really wanted is pointless since the popular bible is a curated collection of material from well after he died (if he ever lived in the first place). But if we're going by the general gist of the message he stood in stark contrast to ye ol' traditionalism of the old testament. If there was a central crux it's to be empathetic or least sympathetic to whatever plight of others even if adversaries, the wisdom of which can be quantified in modern research: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13800. Regrettably due to the aligning nature of religion and conservative as mentioned over time, the most religious typically missed the point entirely.