What makes no sense about the rationale evangelicals offer as why they support Trump

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Apr 20, 2018.

  1. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    To most Christians, anyone not a Christian is not going to heaven. Does that mean they are inferior? No, not at all. It just means that Christians wish they would convert. I can't help it if your ignorant of these simple facts. And I really can't help it if that makes you think all Christians, the most vocal supporters of Israel, are all anti-Semites.
    So a white supremacist giving up their "core belief" doesn't improve them?
    You might want to rephrase that.
    Hard to remember stuff that never happened. Five examples of capitalist economies not being called such, huh? I'm waiting. I'll even help count them.
    Again, who said it wasn't torture?
    So you didn't say this:
    I'm not sure how they'd need any excuse for something compatible with the Bible.
    Hahaha! You think Bill Maher and Michelle Goldberg are experts on religion.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You did. And then you called people pansies for not handling mild training exercises as well as Navy Seals can handle them.

    The US killed people by accident - only the pansies, no doubt - and used these techniques on children in front of their parents - more pansies - and suffocated KSM so many times he barely knew his own name - he a pansy too?

    The example of KSM is interesting, btw, for its demonstration of two things:
    1) The US uses torture for the same reason all torturing governments end up using torture - for intimidation, fear. Information has little to do with a government torture program after a while (there are much better ways to acquire information), and the US has been no exception. KSM's "confession" included multiple absurdities, falsehoods so flagrant they were clearly meant to be spotted by the informed, by his former supporters. "Look what we can make anyone say" - that was the message.
    2) Modern torture does brain damage, hidden physical damage.
    No, five examples of rightwing PC restrictions on the news media vocabulary. Try to follow the argument.

    But anyone can play along: As far as five examples of capitalist economies not being called capitalist in the news reports of their troubles? Colombia under the drug lords, Argentina under the Generals nowdays (at the time, before the Dirty War details came out, they were praised for their capitalism), Somalia a while back, El Salvador and Honduras and Guatemala under the death squads, Russia now, Germany under the Nazis, Mexico under the Narcos, - - - - - even the US during the crashes: afaik none of the bad guys, fraudulent corporations, even financial industry scam sectors, were routinely - or ever, even - referred to as capitalist entities with capitalist influence and capitalist motives or interests.

    Compare the vocabulary of the reporting on Chavez's Venezuela, say.
    I did not mention the Bible, or anything in the Bible, or anything much involving the Bible. You've got my quote right there in front of you.
    Last edited: May 13, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Perhaps you should read your own link, which does not support your argument at all.

    You know, for our sake, because it is somewhat painful to watch.

    Says the one who just uttered the words "pansies" and "real men".

    Secondly, again, you really should take heed of what you are quoting in response, because it does not support your argument at all. Unless you want to argue that "you're not going to die, but you think you are" is not psychologically damaging to begin with.

    Thirdly, you again ignore the fact that soldiers undergoing the training are doing so in a controlled and safe environment. The people the US and co (for the US Government) have tortured had no such assurances. In fact, what you deemed to just be water-boarding also involved beatings, threats of death, physical violence, sexual violence, and other forms of torture (such as forcing them to consume human excrement) over prolonged periods of time.

    So how about you be real here and at the very least, try to post honestly.

    You know, for argument's sake.

    Setting fire to your own strawman, I see..

    But it is never referred as that.

    Understand why that would be?

    Well it is incompatible, unless you are a hardliner who burns an eternal flame for the OT.

    Or perhaps you can quote Jesus Christ advocating for torturing people..

    Is the blindness selective?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    You really should be careful about that laugh, since it signals to everyone else that you are about to botch up yet again. In this case, for instance, you can laugh at your straw man all you want, but—

    —it doesn't change what people are telling you.

    Sure, Goldberg gets some credit, having, y'know, written an acclaimed book on the subject. But Maher? That's the thing; Goldberg was hardly first to the point. Nor Maher; by the time he got around to his wisecracks in 2003, it wasn't exactly a new point. Frederick Clarkson↱ has been working the Dominionism beat for decades:

    It is important to underscore that dominionism, even as it evolves, is not a passing fashion but an historic trend. This trend featured fierce theological battles in the 1980s that pitted the largely apolitical pre-millennial dispensationalism that characterized most of 20th century evangelicalism against a politicized, dominion-oriented postmillennialism.

    The turning point in this theological struggle was the 1973 publication of Rushdoony's 800-page Institutes of Biblical Law, which offered what he believed was a "foundation" for a future biblically based society, and his vision of generations of "dominion men" advancing the "dominion mandate" described in the biblical book of Genesis. The Institutes sought to describe what a biblically-based Christian society would look like. It included a legal code based on the Ten Commandments, and the laws of Old Testament Israel. This included a long list of capital offences—mostly religious or sexual crimes. But Rushdoony and other leading Reconstructionists did not believe that "Biblical Law" could be imposed in a top down fashion by a national theocracy. They thought the biblical kingdom would emerge from the gradual conversion of people who would embrace what they consider to be the whole word of God, and that this could take hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of years. Rushdoony and many Reconstructionists also believed strongly in a vastly decentralized form of government. Theorist Gary North writes, for example, that, "It isn't possible to ramrod God's blessings from the top down, unless you're God. Only humanists think that man is God."

    Nevertheless, Reconstructionist thinkers could not prevent others from feeling a greater sense of urgency about moving up the time-table, or from taking dramatic political action, or in the case of anti-abortion activists, even committing vigilante violence. Indeed, the Institutes and the Reconstructionist works that followed provided a justification for political action that pulled many evangelicals from the political sidelines and into the fray. They also provided an optimistic theology of inevitable victory, suggesting therefore that political action was not only possible but necessary. In the longer term, it also established the often unacknowledged ideological framing for the Christian Right....

    The 2016 advocacy paper, published in The Public Eye, focuses largely on Sen. Ted Cruz. Roy Moore? David Barton? These are people who are Americans known to publicly pledge allegiance to another flag.

    We come back to, Michelle Goldberg↱, including notes from Clarkson:

    Every year, for the past twelve years, D. James Kennedy has hosted the Reclaiming America for Christ conference, usually at his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale. The event brings together hundreds of committed Christian nationalists for two days of lectures, seminars, and devotions that, as the 2001 conference website puts it, "chart the path for believers to take back the land in America". Speakers have included Roy Moore, David Barton, and Rick Scarborough, as well as the occasional GOP operative like Clinton prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Former Vice-President Dan Quayle delivered a speech in the first Reclaiming America for Christ Conference in 1994. In his book, Eternal Hostility, Frederick Clarkson described the scene:

    Quayle's speech was unremarkable, except for his presence during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance—to the Christian flag—which preceded his remarks. The Christian flag, white with a gold cross on a blue field in the upper-left corner, flies outside Kennedy headquarters. The assemblage recited together: I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe.

    For all who believe. Reclaiming America for Christ is a place where the Christian nationalist movement drops its democratic pretenses and indulges its theocratic dreams.

    Don't get me wrong; it's not a thrilling prospect to sit around and listen through a presentation like that, especially if one is sympathetic to these conservative identity politics, but, yeah, making the point of laughing off Goldberg in order to grind a fallacy for satisfaction probably wasn't the best idea.

    You botched up again, Vociferous: The point, as PJdude↑ explained: Dominionism and premillennial dispensationalism are not obscure, new ideas. The terminology is often esoteric, but that has to do with customs of discourse, and, furthermore, we see these people operating throughout American politics; they are integral to social conservative politics, domestic and international. The question of how you are ignorant of these issues fits right alongside a curious, growing body of evidence, like your perpetual inability↑ to properly invoke fallacy, or general unfamiliarity with American history and culture. Nobody is quite certain what to do with it, but constant floundering botchery is not conducive to rational discourse.

    And, seriously: Truculent laughter and self-denigration can certainly make an endearing trait for a supporting character in a sitcom, but after a few seasons sympathetic audience members start to realize they feel insulted. This isn't a sitcom, and the audience, generally speaking, is well past questions of sympathy.

    And, yes, for the record, erasure of Hebrew culture by subsumption into post-Christian identity politics is demonstrably anti-Semitic.

    Look, we get that it feels good to go around throwing phrases at people as if imitating what you've seen others use in the past, but when you do so in this extraordinarily naïve manner, the primary result is self-denigration. I mean, sure, you annoy people and all, by it, but the main effect is to embarrass yourself. If, for instance, you're going to say, "You don't seem to understand religion," then it might behoove you to have a clue, and the laughing on the frontside of grinding some weird fallacy about Coulter—and, yes, cultural erasure of the Hebrews is demonstratively anti-Semitic—just isn't a good idea when seeking satisfaction according to fallacious invincible ignorance°.

    Furthermore, one of the reasons people are only affording the slightest effort attending your pretense of ignorance is that they have no real reason to give it any more. When all you have to show is ignorance and petulant truculence, what will they expect?

    I mean, seriously, Ta-Nehisi Coates scares you that badly?

    You can't even cope with what people put in front of you. The only merit to your arguments is defined by your own satisfaction:

    Making up fallacies like that—"And I really can't help it if that makes you think all Christians ..."—is precisely unacceptable.


    ° The fallacy of invincible ignorance should not be confused with the Catholic ethical teaching appropriated with the name. While invincble ignorance in the Catholic context is generally framed as eliminating culpability, the fallacy of invincible ignorance starts to sound like determined and calculated vincible ignorance, as one postures invincible ignorance as license to continued fallacious behavior. What distinguishes the ignorance postured in this fallacious behavior from nescience is the insistence on pretending some manner of knowledge about what one clearly doesn't know. If one poses as sufficient authority to dismiss others as not understanding a subject, or missing a mark, then it eventually becomes somewhat obligatory for that one to have a clue what they are on about.​

    Clarkson, Frederick. "Dominionism Rising: A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain Sight". Political Research Associates. 18 August 2016. PoliticalResearch.org. 14 May 2018. http://bit.ly/2IzTEWn

    KUOW. "Michelle Goldberg: The Rise of Christian Nationalism". 13 April 2007. Speakers Forum. 18 October 2007. KUOW.org. 14 May 2018. http://bit.ly/1GO3Luv

    Quantum Quack likes this.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    To reiterate: If you are going to try to tell anyone they don't seem to understand religion, then have a clue what you're on about.

    "To most Christians, anyone not a Christian is not going to heaven," is not a clue. Calvin wouldn't have even called it balbutive; he would have called it sinful, because you're old enough to better. At a similar valence of generality, we might remind that most Christians are also apostate.

    Qualifications like, "To most Christians", and strawstuffing such as, "all Christians", are pretty worthless fallacies, right now. There is a point at which not understanding the fact and influence of Dominionism and premillennial dispensationalism is, essentially, vincible; note Clarkson: "it also established the often unacknowledged ideological framing for the Christian Right".

    Part of what happens is these political arguments and sentiments, as Clarkson suggests, hide in plain sight. Start with the idea that it is not proper to suggest certain things about people without some manner of proof. While original sin suggests, for instance, that we should presume to distrust our neighbor; Christ, of course, alters this, but the alleviation of preumed sinfulness also makes accusation very much seem the realm of The Accuser. There are some things you just don't say about people. Okay, sure. Now: How can "Christianity" fall into that range? Well, watch who and what gets trusted until otherwise disqualified. Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Eddie Long, Ted Haggard, George Rekers. You know, just for instance.

    Let us try a different vector: Never trust someone who looks forward to the end of the world. And while it is easy to fallaciously rush to something or other about "all Christians", basic knowledge of Apocalypticism challenges such generalizations, as does any functional modicum of basic understanding about dogmatic and doctrinal diversity. But within a traditionalist outlook whereby, "hope for doomsday springs eternal" (Sutton↱), it is very easy to hide premillennial dispensationalism; consider this note from Steve Benen↱, five months ago:

    A Wall Street Journal report explained that evangelical Christians and Trump's allies in the religious right movement launched a “sustained push," which “began before he was in office," and which had the intended effect.

    Evangelical leaders have urged supporters to email the White House about moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They have advocated on television. And since Mr. Trump took office, they have spoken about it frequently with him and other White House officials, according to multiple evangelical leaders close to Mr. Trump.

    “While this decision was not made exclusively in response to evangelicals, it would not have been made without the evangelical influence," said Johnnie Moore, a member of Mr. Trump's evangelical advisory board…. Mr. Moore said recognizing Jerusalem as the capital has been a frequent topic of conversation when evangelical leaders visit the White House, which under Mr. Trump has been almost daily.

    The piece added that the evangelicals who lobbied the president and his team “prize Jerusalem as a holy city, with special status as the place of Christ's death and his awaited return."

    Radical TV preacher Pat Robertson seemed to reference this on his television show this week, telling viewers, “The last battle is going to be over Jerusalem … that is the holy city. You go in favor of breaking up Jerusalem, you're going against the direct word of Jesus, and this is a prophecy that has stood for hundreds of years." Robert Jeffress, a Texas megachurch pastor and prominent White House ally, added that Jerusalem is the place Jesus “will set foot again on earth at his second coming."

    There's no reason to believe Trump made his controversial decision for theological reasons. Indeed, there's nothing to suggest the president even knows anything about this aspect of the issue.

    And then we might note Mr. Benen↱, again, today:

    There was already considerable controversy surrounding Donald Trump's decision to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Palestinians have long opposed the move, and the American president's willingness to ignore their concerns have made peace talks that much more difficult.

    Complicating matters, there will be an event in Jerusalem today to mark the opening of the new U.S. facility, and the opening prayer at the ceremony will be delivered by a right-wing Texas pastor with an ugly rhetorical record. In some circles, this isn't going over well ....

    .... There are two key angles to the story. The first is that Jeffress appears to support the relocation of the embassy as part of a fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy. For the White House to extend an invitation to the right-wing pastor, providing him with a prominent role in today's ceremony, signals at least tacit support for this theological vision.

    The second is that Romney is hardly Jeffress' only critic ....

    .... Of particular relevance today, he's also said “you can't be saved by being a Jew." As recently as three years ago, Jeffress even insisted that Christians in the United States are persecuted in ways comparable to Germany's treatment of Jews before the Holocaust.

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) once said to associate with Robert Jeffress was “beneath the office of president of the United States."

    What PJ told you isn't news. It wasn't news when Coulter tapped it. Nor was it news when Goldberg was putting together her book; nor Bill Maher wisecracking on Larry King's show, and his own. Every once in a while, Clarkson is giving us news, but that goes back to 1994, at least, which only makes the point. This isn't new. The only reason we don't talk about it more is that it makes the empowerment majority uncomfortable. To the one, it probably isn't unique to American Christendom, but, to the other, something about specks and planks, disrupts certain manners of internece dispute—an asymmetric phenomenon that will see self-branded "evangelicals" and "conservative Christians" denouncing "liberal Christianity" in perhaps the most dangerous manner their faith can find (see Mt. 12.30-31↱)—and, let's face it, actually accusing someone of working to advance the Apocalypse is a fraught question; most people, regardless of politic or label, generally eschew close scrutiny of their own identity assertions and the darker promises of associated philosophies, politics, and faiths. Bringing the end of the world is the stuff of protomythic supervillains, not good Christians. Except, well, it's a bit more complicated than that, and the Christians who would bring the end of the world for the sake of earthly fulfillment can pretty much boast it in the public square, and this Christian-majority country will likely not figure it out until long after things are on fire.

    And none of this is news.


    Benen, Steve. "This Week in God, 12.9.17". msnbc. 9 December 2017. msnbc.com. 14 May 2018. https://on.msnbc.com/2II0VDF

    —————. "Trump taps right-wing pastor for US embassy event in Jerusalem". msnbc. 14 May 2018. msnbc.com. 14 May 2018. https://on.msnbc.com/2rGnDSO

    Sutton, Matthew Avery. "Apocalypticism in U.S. History". Oxford Research Encyclopedias. August, 2016. Religion.OxfordRe.com. 14 May 2018. http://bit.ly/2wKJ1eW

    Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 14 May 2018. http://bit.ly/2rJddky

    Quantum Quack likes this.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    I might point to Clarkson, and this is part of the evangelical fervor Reagan tapped in the '80s, but as Sutton, previously quoted, reminds by the mere fact of surveying "Apocalypticism in U.S. History", the basic gist has been around the whole time. Dispensationalism itself seems to originate in th 1830s, and with the Plymouth Brethren, which in turn is funnier than it ought to be, but that is a fairly obscure clue that we can skip for the moment because last week brought me to a weird intersection of Crowley and incels, while at the same time there is an actual juxtaposition worth considering, about letting vocal incel terrormongers represent virginity being no more wise than letting American conservative evangelicals represent Christianity.

    Premillennial dispensationalism is one of the big reasons why. It seems strange to consider they require, at least functionally though sometimes formally in questions of free will, that God not know what is in a person's heart, as such, but that is an important thing to remember. The underlying idea is that they can work to create the Apocalypse so that Jesus will return to whisk them away, and then return with His saints to unleash tribulation upon the world. And, yes, they presume they will be Saved. And, yes, they inherently figure God is just fine with this. Or, if they really need a fallback, Jesus Saves, and they really, really believe (see John 3.16↱).

    It's like I said, recently, in another thread↗: People aren't going to rush to write your theses for you. Similarly, when all you have to offer is belligerent ignorance, nobody is certain what to offer. And as noted above↑, it would help if your responses to people accomplished something other than reminding it's not worth the effort. To wit, who will dive and delve American Christendom for the sake of a troll? And, let us be clear, why would anyone? It's a tall enough task getting even those who disdain religion for some reason or another to attend the history; nobody is really up for combing Noll, Riesebrodt, Armstrong, Pagels, Russell, &c., when the best they can expect in return is pretentious laughter and snd fallacy; the actual primary source record for all this has been under scrutiny and debate for centuries, and the twentieth century primary documents are just a miserable fever swamp. Think, for instance, of Curtis Lee Laws and fundamentalism as a reaction. Try the Dallas Theological Seminary (Chafer, Woolverton, Pentecost, &c.) and their progeny, including the aforementioned Robert Jeffress. Have at it, if you want, and you might even find a clue. By the time you get around to Rushdoony and Chalcedon, all pretense to accidents of irony are generally demolished, but even that conflict between conformity, adaptation, and an institutional power requires some understanding of the record in order to appreciate the fifth-century version of trolling among Catholics and the irony of Calvinists invoking the episode as an identity banner.

    And, really, that's all within one tree; it doesn't speak to other Apocalyptic doctrines, which, in turn, become their own questions.


    —you apparently can't be bothered to invest enough effort into your fallacies to actually make sense. Like the funny joke about closet-queer bondage lust and overwrought Passion plays at this one megachurch with an infamous closet-case former pastor and festering chatter about senior clergy that isn't really funny because closeteering is tragic and torture is torture no matter how sexy they think it is to be whipped and degraded and made to wear a crown of thorns while their bodies are penetrated in new ways they never previously experienced.

    So what is it you need people to underatand about religion? You know, other than fallacy and self-denigrating botchery?

    Quantum Quack likes this.
  10. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    if your gonna make strawman arguments could they at least be original or you know good?
  11. Bells Staff Member

    By most Christians, you mean evangelicals? They hardly classify as "most".

    You don't think evangelicals damning them to hell is considering them as inferior?

    The evangelical pastor who is closely tied and involved in the Trump administration has literally damned Jews to hell. Evangelicals consider Jews to be inferior because they are Jews. The very belief system that drives evangelicals to support Israel and demand Jews convert to fulfill their own religious prophecies is at the height of religious supremacism.

    Okay, if you are going to argue like an evangelical, it would behoove you to not call anyone ignorant.

    To the one, historically, antisemitism is deeply connected to Christianity.

    To the other, evangelical Christians who believe that Jews will be damned to hell unless they convert to Christianity is a primary form of antisemitism. Some of the most modern forms of antisemitism stems from evangelical Christians who demand Jews not be Jewish anymore and embrace Christ.

    Evangelical Christians support Israel because it fits into their end time rapture prophecies.

    I have to ask, what is going to happen to the close ties between evangelicals and Israel when Jews refuse to convert to evangelical Christian beliefs?

    Because at some point, Jews in Israel are going to rebel against the demands and none too subtle demands of conversion and then what? At present, Israel needs their support for their own gain, while evangelicals need Israel to satisfy their need for 'The Rapture'. Each has a need that is currently being satisfied by the other. But Jews will not convert (nor should they) and evangelicals will not be satisfied unless they push for a war that will bring about the end of days and Jews convert. So what happens then?
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  12. Michael 345 30th March coming up - Well behaved Friday Valued Senior Member

    Atheist take over

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page