a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by madmatt112
madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Why Evangelicals—Still!—Support Trump

I agree with you! That passage IS hilarious, but the context of the day and the historical understanding that large penises were often seen as crude, vulgar, or savage in many cultures in that time helps me understand why the author (and all the subsequent "shepherds" of the bible) kept it in there to help illustrate his point.

All of this being said, that Ezekiel passage has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the bible's claims, teachings, morality, and the wider Christian religion itself though. And that's something I notice in discussions around Christianity and faith in general - these passages are red herrings that allow someone to criticize the text, but they have very little relation to the broader religion and worldview.





tacocat  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

OK dude. Why are evangelical Christians not outraged by the existence of Donald Trump? Let alone his presidency. Two Corinthians. The dude fucking said that contains his favorite Bible verse. Two. Not Second. Two. "Leftists" would probably have fewer issues with people who would use the word leftist if not for the rampant hypocrisy

steve  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Why are evangelical Christians not outraged by the existence of Donald Trump?

this is the real question... lest we digress into more conversations about donkey genitals... :)

madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hey steve, this is a really interesting question. My thoughts follow, and I'm really curious to know what yours are!

I think a large part (not the entirety) of why Trump voters voted the way they did, even the Evangelicals (let us be charitable and agree that not all Evangelicals are the same, not even close, but for expediency treat them as a unit here), boils down to two major themes:

1) Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate from start to finish, and the DNC was abhorrent in its push to crown her as President at the expense of all else. Her and the DNC's messaging (often amplified by sloppy media operations[this is my way of saying Liberal Media Bias without sounding like a moron]) was often insulting to vast swaths of conservative Americans, and helped a) push moderates to the right, and b) get republicans voting in droves.

2) Many Americans hold political views, values, and beliefs that are better represented by the Republican party than the Democratic party. This is simple - they'll hold their nose about Trump and vote for him anyways because they fear worse outcomes from the Democratic option than the Republican option. There is often not a viable third option, and that is part of why D.T. is a thing.

Thoughts?

tacocat  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The Republicans excoriated Bill Clinton for less. And their voters lined up behind them in agreement. You're full of shit

madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hey, I haven't once said that anybody should vote for, support, or oppose any specific political candidate or even party! I'm not arguing for Trump. I was stating the reasons I think many people ended up voting for him even he seems like a morally distasteful or even evil character. How does that make me full of shit? Man, you're being harsh on me today. It's fine to disagree with my ideas, but you've been downright hostile.

tacocat  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm sorry. You made zero sense in the first comment. I was confused

madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hey man, thanks for apologizing at least. I appreciate it :)

I didn't expect quite so much response when I posted my first comment, so I'm not surprised it wasn't well articulated. Thanks for your honesty.

steve  ·  2190 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I dunno man... as a pretty religious person... I can say that religion has nothing to do with this.

anecdote: I was a registered republican. I thought that was important. In 2006 I was boo'd off the stage of my local caucus because I suggested we get out of other peoples' wombs and bedrooms, and select delegates who were more concerned about fiscal responsibility and following the constitution. (gay marriage and abortion were _still_ the main talking points for the party... and I was tired of it... we have bigger fish to fry). Needless to say, I'm no longer a registered republican.

Too many republicans are too busy tying their morals and religion to their politics. I get it that your religious values inform who you are and what choices you make... but I am pretty tired of the government (and the people who elect them) trying to legislate morality.

Sure... this article is pretty harsh on "evangelical christians" (a term that I loathe by the way). But it is highlighting the cognitive dissonance that many of us see in a large swath of people who claim to believe in certain things, claim to vote on said beliefs... and then proceed to give a free ride to a dude who basically flies directly in the face of those beliefs: liar, cheater, swindler, adulterer, misogynist, etc... I mean... the dude is an order of magnitude worse on the "morality" scale than Clinton ever was... but religious people look the other way because of..... his..... stance on tax cuts? because of his business savvy? I just don't get it.

madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Do you claim that Christians should be outraged at the existence of Donald Trump? I don't think he lives a demonstration of Christian values and beliefs. Donald Trump does not represent all Christians. Donald Trump is a person, not an archetype. His likely total lack of knowledge of the bible does not surprise me, but it does nothing to nullify the bible itself.

tacocat  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

OK. Then you went off about the "leftists" and your moral high ground. In a thread about why Christians should oppose Trump. So how was your statement not nonsense?

madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I suppose the reason I said "leftists" was because the article was written from a perspective I would define as "leftist", and I was taking issue with the article and some of the presuppositions and premises that leftist thought holds. Part of that is the moral relativism that I see eating the heart of civilization, decimating self-identity, and destroying social fabrics. I'm fine with you disagreeing with me on these things, and I don't want to start another argument, but I am trying to answer your question honestly.

I don't think Christians should oppose Trump. It's more nuanced than that. I think Hillary Clinton would have been equally un-Christian of a leader in the White House, that being said. I just don't think I'd prescribe Christians either 100% supporting or 100% opposing Trump - things are more nuanced than that.

tacocat  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I find it more likely that Hilary is an actual Christian

madmatt112  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hmm... I think I do too.

user-inactivated  ·  2192 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Since you brought up archetypes, I'm kinda curious who you mean by "Leftists".

For what it is worth, I don't know of her (heck, I haven't even read the piece) but I checked out the author's twitter page, and she is followed by accounts I'd consider Leftist (Kshama Sawant, AK Press, Haymarket Books, Verso Books).