Thread: Is Dobson Backtracking on Trump Conversion? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030148
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well this is interesting. Dobson isn't so sure anymore that the mangled apricot hellbeast has been born again. This from RedState (ultimate source=the Resurgent) and this tweeter.
In a nutshell:
1. Dobson is walking back his claim that the Donald has converted;
2. The person he got this news from in the first place is known charlatan Paula White.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I will try to keep this Purgatorial, but the few times I have made myself listen to Dobson's radio show, I' ve come away with the impression that he is a rather...erm... Credulous individual.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Dobson is the sort of person who believes what he wants to believe. During the 2008 election campaign he held that if Obama was elected Iran would get nukes and use them to impose a two state solution on Israel/ Palestine. Now one could argue that Obama was insufficiently hawkish on the Middle East, which isn't my view, but it's not obviously mad. One could argue that Iran with nukes would make the world a more dangerous place, which would be my view. One could argue that Iran seeks the destruction of the state of Israel which would be my view, but with the qualification that it is notes high on the "to do" list as they imply, on the grounds that the obvious replacement would be militantly Sunni and I can see why the Israeli PM doesn't really want to take chances over. But a nuclear armed Iran, militantly hostile to Israel, imposing a peaceful settlement on the region? I'll have whatever you're smoking.
The reason, of course, is that 'Bible prophecy' states that the formation of Israel is an essential precursor to the Second Coming, so from Dobson's point of view there is no existential threat to Israel but he still wanted to sabre rattle over the Middle East. If your world view is as obviously based on cherry-picking whatever you want to believe then the Donald can be a Christian or not depending on how you feel when you get up in the morning.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think it's plausible deniablity.
Dobson's validation of Trump's "conversion" made it onto at least one Facebook feed I saw of MoTR US evangelical missionaries. It legitimises an evo vote for Trump. I'm sure his backpedalling will not be similarly retweeted by my acquaintances, but he can bring it out later as and when the not-quite-unthinkable happens, a bit like Farage and the £350 million.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
I'm guessing Dobson's statement was meant to circulate within the relatively closed-off evangelical subculture, essentially to reassure evangelicals that Donald Trump's moral character wasn't something they needed to worry about. ("The theocratic equivalent of money laundering" was the way one blogger put it.) He most likely didn't intend this kind of cynical endorsement of Donald Trump as a good evangelical to be noted by the wider society or have to bear any kind of critical scrutiny. The interesting thing is Dobson's offered rationale:
quote:
All I can tell you is that we have only two choices, Hillary or Donald. Hillary scares me to death. And, if Christians stay home because he isn’t a better candidate, Hillary will run the world for perhaps eight years. The very thought of that haunts my nights and days.
Asked about the state of Trump's soul, Dobson resorts to discussing Trump's electoral prospects. The idea of a woman being President of the United States apparently gives Dobson nightmares. Claiming Donald Trump represents evangelical virtues (even if he's only a "baby Christian") apparently does not.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Claiming Donald Trump represents evangelical virtues (even if he's only a "baby Christian") apparently does not.
Hillary is also (nominally) a Liberal. Liberals aren't True Christians, therefore Trump is the only Christian choice.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
("The theocratic equivalent of money laundering" was the way one blogger put it.)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The interesting thing is Dobson's offered rationale:
quote:
All I can tell you is that we have only two choices, Hillary or Donald. Hillary scares me to death. And, if Christians stay home because he isn’t a better candidate, Hillary will run the world for perhaps eight years. The very thought of that haunts my nights and days.
Asked about the state of Trump's soul, Dobson resorts to discussing Trump's electoral prospects. The idea of a woman being President of the United States apparently gives Dobson nightmares. Claiming Donald Trump represents evangelical virtues (even if he's only a "baby Christian") apparently does not.
To be fair to Dobson: as a member of this subculture, it's not Hillary's femaleness that bothers the evangelical right nearly so much as her strongly pro-choice stance. That is certainly the case for Dobson (which is not to suggest he's not also strongly patriarchal-- he is-- just that pro-life trumps all, pardon the expression).
Which I think again, illustrates the problem.
As an evangelical, I'm passionately pro-life. But it's been evident for decades for anyone with ears to hear that the political strategy enacted by pro-life evangelicals for the last 40-some years is deeply flawed. It is first of all, highly selective-- "pro-life" when it comes to unborn babies, when it comes to war, poverty, health care, death penalty, incarceration-- not so much. Even more so, the blind adherence not just to "pro-life" values in this limited way, but to a particular strategy (overturning Roe v Wade) as the one and only way to accomplish that goal is deeply flawed. It led us to ignore the evidence that Democratic economic/social policies result in fewer abortions than Republican ones. And (as Jim Wallis details in God Politics) it's caused us to get into bed with increasingly nasty creatures, to turn a blind eye to all sorts of atrocities as long as the candidate in question pays lip service (no need for actual action, thank you very much) to overturning Roe.
And that's very much what you see going on right now in the evangelical camp. Lots of the sorts of statements above: "of course we can't vote for Hillary..." as a default, a priori assumption that needs no further consideration. I've heard lots of hand-wringing from evangelicals about how much they hate to vote for Trump, but I've yet to hear a right wing evangelical lay out the argument why they absolutely can't vote for HIllary. It's just a "given": Hillary is the anti-Christ. Pres. Hillary will usher in the apocalypse.
Once you start with that sort of assumption, Trump is right: he could stand on 5th Ave. shooting random strangers and still win their vote. But they want us to know they feel really, really bad about it.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As an evangelical, I'm passionately pro-life. But it's been evident for decades for anyone with ears to hear that the political strategy enacted by pro-life evangelicals for the last 40-some years is deeply flawed. It is first of all, highly selective-- "pro-life" when it comes to unborn babies, when it comes to war, poverty, health care, death penalty, incarceration-- not so much.
To say nothing of the NRA's idolatrous eisegesis of the Second Amendment! Some of the same evangelicals (not you, I know) treat it as if it were more inspired and inerrant than the Beatitudes.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Once you start with that sort of assumption, Trump is right: he could stand on 5th Ave. shooting random strangers and still win their vote. But they want us to know they feel really, really bad about it.
Probably almost as bad as Pilate felt when he washed his hands.
[ 30. June 2016, 18:50: Message edited by: fausto ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Then there's the whole issue of a strategy that relies entirely on legislation-- outlawing abortion-- to the exclusion of any attempts to transform hearts (or again, giving women the resources needed to choose otherwise). As Greg Boyd details in "The Myth of a Christian Nation" attempting to enforce Christian values/priorities (or our particular version of Christian values/priorities) thru such heavy-handed coercion is inherently oxymoronic because it's investing in the "ways of this world" ("power over" is Boyd's term) rather than the ways of the Kingdom ("power under"). Spending the last 40 years pursuing this failed legislative agenda is not just a lost opportunity to present a more winsome version of evangelical gospel-- it's a refutation of the very gospel we want to be promoting.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The mention of prolife leads me to ask if Trump is pro anything. Not seeing too much positive there.
As for conversion, no doubt he converted to Cheetos and Dobson misheard.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The mention of prolife leads me to ask if Trump is pro anything.
Yes, he is. He is pro-Trump.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Remember kiddies, he could be about to become President Hellbeast. At which point the whole nation is born again. As citizens of hell.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
When asked if he ever asked for forgivenes, Trump answered, "Why should I?"
The photo of him meeting with evangelicals shows a old Playboy photo of him standing with a porn star
It is not only Dobson that has blinders, it also appears so many other evangelical leaders have the same blinders on. Falwell comes to mind. Franklin Graham has also endorsed Trump.
Meanwhile, millennials continue to flee the evangelical church.
Evangelical leaders just keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
When asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness, his reply:
quote:
We I take, when we go, and church and when I drink my little wine – which is about the only wine I drink – and have my little cracker, I guess that’s a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed, OK? But, you know, to me that’s important, I do that, but in terms of officially, I could say, ‘Absolutely!’ and everybody, I don’t think in terms of that. I think in terms of, let’s go on and let’s make it right.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
When asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness, his reply:
quote:
We I take, when we go, and church and when I drink my little wine – which is about the only wine I drink – and have my little cracker, I guess that’s a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed, OK? But, you know, to me that’s important, I do that, but in terms of officially, I could say, ‘Absolutely!’ and everybody, I don’t think in terms of that. I think in terms of, let’s go on and let’s make it right.
Holy shit! He cannot let go his narcissism long enough to form a coherent sentence.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I knew I was aiming too high in expecting a coherent paragraph.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
He is a regular participant in wine-and-cracker time? (Why does this remind me of graham crackers and juice at preschool?) Can anybody verify this? What church is he supposedly a member of?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He is a regular participant in wine-and-cracker time? (Why does this remind me of graham crackers and juice at preschool?) Can anybody verify this? What church is he supposedly a member of?
According to wikipedia, he is Presbyterian. I'm guessing that's via his Scottish mother.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He is a regular participant in wine-and-cracker time? (Why does this remind me of graham crackers and juice at preschool?) Can anybody verify this? What church is he supposedly a member of?
It's a bit difficult to nail down. Norman Vincent Peale, who he says is "his pastor" left the pastorate in 1984 and died in 1993.
Reminds me of Reagan, who long listed Bel Air Presbyterian as his church, and indeed his name was on the roles. But when asked to confirm that he actually attended there, the pastor confirmed that, yes, he attended quite regularly-- every 4 years, regular as clockwork.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Ah, Norman Vincent Peale. Whom Tom Lehrer sarcastically derided in 1965 as a "deep philosopher." I'm guessing Trump seldom darkened the door of a church after his mother stopped making him go. Which is not a horrible thing, unless one, and one's Evangelical ass-lickers, pretend otherwise.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Miss Amanda Mystery Worshipped Marble Collegiate Church in 2005. There's no mention of wine and crackers as it was not a Communion service. (Do the Reformed Church and/or the Presbyterian Church use wine?)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Miss Amanda Mystery Worshipped Marble Collegiate Church in 2005. There's no mention of wine and crackers as it was not a Communion service. (Do the Reformed Church and/or the Presbyterian Church use wine?)
Not usually. But then marble collegiate is not a Presbyterian church. All part of the convoluted trump religious narrative
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
As noted in the CNN report, when he was a child, Trump's family attended First Presbyterian Church of Jamaica in Queens, which is a PC(USA) congregation. Trump was confirmed there, and that apparently is the reason he claims to be Presbyterian, even though at some point his family started attending Marble Collegiate instead. As noted, Marble Collegiate is Reformed (RCA)—first cousin to Presbyterian, but not Presbyterian.
And yes, some Presbyterian congregations do use wine, though as cliffdweller says, probably not that many percentage-wise. The rule is that if wine is used, a non-alcoholic alternative should be available.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Narcissism is a personality disorder that cannot be turned on or off or set aside. Trump is what he is.
I remember the time the RCA church in the community were I interned at decided to use wine and the common cup. The RCA pastor got coached by my supervisor how to use the common cup.
The time came for communion. The people were ushered up for the first communion table. The pastor gave the common cup to the first person saying: "Drink ye all of it."
They had to assist the person back to the pew.
True story.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Narcissism is a personality disorder that cannot be turned on or off or set aside. Trump is what he is.
I remember the time the RCA church in the community were I interned at decided to use wine and the common cup. The RCA pastor got coached by my supervisor how to use the common cup.
The time came for communion. The people were ushered up for the first communion table. The pastor gave the common cup to the first person saying: "Drink ye all of it."
They had to assist the person back to the pew.
True story.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The late Frank Carson, an Irish comedian had two catch phrases for which he became famous.
"It's a cracker!" meaning so funny, you'll crack up with laughter, and
"It's the way I tell 'em" meaning a good joke or a good story improves when told by a funny man with good delivery.
(Explanations to take account of pond differences!)
The UK also had a sports commentator, the late David Coleman. Although very able and respected, by colleagues, he was also capable of mangling the language at times. "Private Eye" delighted in recording these under the heading "ColemanBalls".
This stuff about his faith strikes me as DonaldBalls. And certainly "the way he tells 'em" confirms the impression of both an incoherent mind and an uncertain memory. I don't think he's a cracker (US slang) but I'm more and more convinced he's a crackpot. Someone who is "crazy or very strange" (Merriam-Webster definition).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Barnabas--
What US slang meaning of "cracker" are you intending? I only know of it as a slur against white people, ahd Urban Dictionary agrees on that. Just trying to clarify.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Wiki was my friend
quote:
Cracker, sometimes white cracker or cracka, is a usually derogatory and/or offensive term for white people, especially poor rural whites in the Southern United States. In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context or self-descriptively with pride (see Florida cracker and Georgia cracker).
I don't think that fits the Donald. He sure ain't poor rural white.
[ 03. July 2016, 10:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
IMHO, not a good word to use, nor any other racial slur.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Do you think it shouldn't be used in Ship of Fools posts? That might be an issue worth discussing in the Styx if you'd like to do that. Maybe I was too entranced by the verbal closeness of cracker and crackpot?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The most probable etymology of the word is classist, rather than racist. IME, it is still used by white people in such a manner. That said, regardless of the origin, for a white person to use it referencing another white person, how can that use be racist?
This is not an argument for liberal use of the word, just pedantic musing.
[ 03. July 2016, 15:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Anyway... Trump is a little too orange to be considered white.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
for a white person to use it referencing another white person, how can that use be racist?
You mean like blacks using the "n" word amongst themselves? I don't like it when I hear it, but then again I'm white. I suppose I would call another white person a cracker in jest, but it's not something that peppers my everyday speech.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Barnabas--
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Do you think it shouldn't be used in Ship of Fools posts? That might be an issue worth discussing in the Styx if you'd like to do that. Maybe I was too entranced by the verbal closeness of cracker and crackpot?
Well, AFAIK, we're already not supposed to use racial slurs here. I'm not trying to stir anything up. I figured you just were mistaken about what it means over here. Not sure what to do with the fact that you'd already looked it up.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Golden Key
OK. I really wasn't aware of the sensitivity over the term, which I don't think has an equivalent in the UK. I apologise for giving you and anyone else offence. Noted for the future.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
FWIW, I've lived all of my 50+ years in the American South, and my experience is similar to what lilBuddha says: that "cracker" is primarily a classist term used by some whites in reference to other whites. It's pretty much interchangeable with "poor white trash" or, as originally used, "redneck."
That said, there are certainly some well-known instances of the term being used by blacks as derogatory of whites. Usage by people like Malcolm X and Trayvon Martin come to mind.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Well, Trump appears to be white trash regardless of how much money he claims to have.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
FWIW, I've lived all of my 50+ years in the American South, and my experience is similar to what lilBuddha says: that "cracker" is primarily a classist term used by some whites in reference to other whites. It's pretty much interchangeable with "poor white trash" or, as originally used, "redneck."
That said, there are certainly some well-known instances of the term being used by blacks as derogatory of whites. Usage by people like Malcolm X and Trayvon Martin come to mind.
It is also used in a fair number of American rap songs. I was not arguing that it cannot be racist, but that its context imparts that meaning.
Most racial slurs are racist words with racist origin, even though they can be used in a non-racist way.
Cracker is a classist word that has, in some instances, been co-opted as a racial slur.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
History has taught that whether a politician -or tvangelist- is (or claims to be) born-again, carries no guarantee whatsoever for born-again behavior.
If Christians in the U.S.A. want an alibi to vote for the Donald, then of course his being born-again becomes relevant. But does anybody really see any true symptoms of that?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Tamen wrote:
quote:
FWIW, I've lived all of my 50+ years in the American South, and my experience is similar to what lilBuddha says: that "cracker" is primarily a classist term used by some whites in reference to other whites. It's pretty much interchangeable with "poor white trash" or, as originally used, "redneck."
FWIW, in the movie(and maybe the book) Gone With The Wind, set in the 1860s(obviously), black characters use the phrase "white trash" to insult certain supposedly declasse white characters.
As I don't think I've ever seen an earlier usage of the phrase(I mean the 1860s, not the 1930s when the film was made), I have wondered if it indicates that the term originated among African Americans. Though it's doubtful to what extent blacks in the antebellum south would have felt themselves at liberty to denigrate freely the social standing of even lower-class whites. (In the scene I recall, a fairly formidable female slave uses the phrase within the privacy of the plantation home, to insult some guests who have not arrived yet.)
[ 04. July 2016, 17:06: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I believe there will be many, many more Christians who will not vote for Trump regardless of what Dobson or Falwell or Graham say. Those three leaders (and others like them) are so removed from Christianity, it is difficult to call them Christian, IMHO.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
FWIW, in the movie(and maybe the book) Gone With The Wind, set in the 1860s(obviously), black characters use the phrase "white trash" to insult certain supposedly declasse white characters.
As I don't think I've ever seen an earlier usage of the phrase(I mean the 1860s, not the 1930s when the film was made), I have wondered if it indicates that the term originated among African Americans.
According to Wikipedia, the term originated in the 1830s "as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites." By 1855, it was also used by upperclass whites.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
FWIW, in the movie(and maybe the book) Gone With The Wind, set in the 1860s(obviously), black characters use the phrase "white trash" to insult certain supposedly declasse white characters.
As I don't think I've ever seen an earlier usage of the phrase(I mean the 1860s, not the 1930s when the film was made), I have wondered if it indicates that the term originated among African Americans.
According to Wikipedia, the term originated in the 1830s "as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites." By 1855, it was also used by upperclass whites.
Ah, thanks. That precisely mirrors the usage in GWTW, since the slave who utters the line was clearly "house".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I believe there will be many, many more Christians who will not vote for Trump regardless of what Dobson or Falwell or Graham say. Those three leaders (and others like them) are so removed from Christianity, it is difficult to call them Christian, IMHO.
They don't even speak for most American evangelicals anymore.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
FWIW, in the movie(and maybe the book) Gone With The Wind, set in the 1860s(obviously), black characters use the phrase "white trash" to insult certain supposedly declasse white characters.
As I don't think I've ever seen an earlier usage of the phrase(I mean the 1860s, not the 1930s when the film was made), I have wondered if it indicates that the term originated among African Americans.
According to Wikipedia, the term originated in the 1830s "as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites." By 1855, it was also used by upperclass whites.
I seem to recall in "Roots" that the slaves in the fields used to sing "Not po' white please, for I'd rather be an N-word*". It's probably fair to say that solidarity among the oppressed wasn't really a thang in the antebellum South.
*They didn't actually use the word, "N-word" of course. Political correctness wasn't a thang in the antebellum South, either.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Those three leaders (and others like them) are so removed from Christianity, it is difficult to call them Christian, IMHO.
“God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are...”
This thread takes me back to my evangelical youth, when not only was it common knowledge that all non-evangelicals were not Christians, but we were told by certain austere and ancient evangelicals – who apparently just knew - that most professing evangelicals are ignorant and worldly and not really Christians either.
I thought of starting another thread off the back of this one, called something like Who Gets To Decide Who Is And Isn’t A Christian, And On The Basis Of What Criteria?
FWIW, I don’t like Trump, and find his apparent grasp (or lack thereof) of Christian truth tenuous to say the least, but then I could say the same about countless others who label themselves (or are labelled) as Christian, but I wouldn’t therefore presume to conclude anything about their relationship to God.
What about Nelson Mandela’s seemingly very nominal connection with Methodism (some commentators are not sure that he wasn’t in fact a JW), or Martin Luther King’s serial adultery?
What about Augustine’s persecution of the Donatists, or Luther’s anti-Semitism, or Calvin’s burning of Servetus?
What about RC popes such as Alexander VI or Julius II, or the various Orthodox ecclesiastical worthies who distinguished themselves by anti-Semitism and blinding opponents?
What about the heterodox religious syncretism which can be found globally and historically in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism?
All dismissable as not Christians at all?
It is one thing to be cynical about the exploitation of religion for political purposes, but quite another to arbitrarily decide that anyone whose politics you disagree with cannot be a Christian at all.
[ 05. July 2016, 06:41: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Those three leaders (and others like them) are so removed from Christianity, it is difficult to call them Christian, IMHO.
“God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are...”
As far as I'm concerned it's not about deciding who is Christian and who is not. I myself would probably fall short of any standard I could come up with.
It is about the deception of Christians by politicians that play the "I am Christian" card, and do not behave like Christians, and whose political goals are anything but Christian.
At least since the Moral Majority the U.S.A. has been a severely misled nation in that respect.
The only time in recent history that the U.S.A. had a president who, besides being a decent human being, let his Christianity seriously influence his politics, he was quickly gotten rid of after one term.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I have no idea whether Trump is a Christian or not, or whether the reported (then retracted) conversion was for real.
But *if* people led him to Christ for their own political expediency, they did a horrible thing. And no newbie Christian should be put under the pressure he'll face from them and their minions.
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on
:
There is an opinion piece on the editorial page of today's (July 5, 2016) New York Times called "The theology of Donald Trump". by Peter Wehner, a Republican who worked in the administrations of 3 Republican presidents. I'm including a link but in case it doesn't work, just google the title and author.
It's well worth a read.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
but I wouldn’t therefore presume to conclude anything about their relationship to God.
I don't give a toss about a political leader's connection to any god, but I do to their policies, positions and ethics. Trump's behaviour suggests his policies and positions are self-serving, surface to core.
quote:
What about Nelson Mandela’s seemingly very nominal connection with Methodism (some commentators are not sure that he wasn’t in fact a JW),
Don't care. He was not man perfected, but all weighed in balance, very much a Good man.
quote:
or Martin Luther King’s serial adultery?
(etc,)
A person is a Christian if they accept a core set of beliefs. A person is 'christian' based on their actions. One can only know for themselves what they truly believe, but it isn't that difficult to weigh the actions of public figures. Martin Luther King's infidelity is not to be celebrated or forgotten; but in all ways real, he lived a christian life.
People are flawed, sometimes greatly, but the flaw does not always define their being.
I do not know an incredible amount about Martin Luther; but he seems to have been genuinely concerned about the, in his view, errant practices of the RCC. Yet his antisemitism does him no credit. He appears to have been a Christian who practiced, in balance, a flawed christianity.
Trump, however, exhibits no christian virtue, shows no attempt at adherence to a christian life.
As I think many of his endorsers in the Christian leadership are massive hypocrites and poor followers of Jesus anyway, their endorsement is of no surprise.
[ 05. July 2016, 17:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Kaplan Corday
"You don't have to be an exceptionally cynical person to believe that Trump is manifestly not a Christian, and is cynically using Christians for his electoral purposes; you just have to be a person with a brain and a passing familiarity with Christianity. Throughout the entirety of his public life he has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in Christianity or anything it teaches, and his behavior on the campaign trail has done nothing but reinforce that."
Source.
And BTW, James Dobson is quoted as saying he knows the person who "led him (Trump) to Christ". Doesn't that tell you that Dobson either doesn't know, or has forgotten, that human beings don't lead people to Christ. That is a presumption.
Billy Graham made a point of emphasising that he converted no one. "Conviction and conversion are the work of the Holy Ghost. I am just one of the messenger boys." I heard him say that during the Mission England Campaign. He was right then and he's right now.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re "lead to Christ":
When I was growing up, that was in common usage. Mostly, I think, because that part of the Christian spectrum emphasizes a clear moment of conversion--"asking Jesus into your heart", etc.--and witnessing to people.
I'm no fan of Dobson; and I already said what I think of what may have been done about converting Trump. But using the words doesn't necessarily say anything bad (or good) about Dobson.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Conversion is a work of God in the human heart. And God knows what is really going on. Not James Dobson, acting on hearsay. His first statement was, at best, naive presumption. This isn't just about loose use of language.
[ 06. July 2016, 07:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Seems to demand an 'Amen'.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"You don't have to be an exceptionally cynical person to believe that Trump is manifestly not a Christian"
You do have to be an exceptionally arrogant and self-righteous person to stand in the place of God and pontificate that someone who claims to be a Christian is actually not.
First, history and the current world are replete with professing Christians whom at least some other Christians would judge don't meet the theological or moral criteria to deserve the label.
Secondly, any self-professed Christian with a skerrick of self-awareness will be aware that their own claim to the label is fatally flawed, and therefore be very careful about stripping it from others.
I don't know whether or not Trump is a Christian, and neither do journalists, other SofF posters, or James Dobson.
All we can do is hope that God's grace is as inclusive of Trump as it is of the rest of us, and that his faith "small as a grain of mustard seed" and hopelessly confused, will be accepted as at least a starting point.
Any categorical denial of his right to identify as a Christian is mere pharisaical virtue signalling.
Of course, none of the foregoing is an excuse for not criticising his politics....
[ 06. July 2016, 03:34: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Rubbish, KC.
Once again, he might be a Christian, but he certainly shows no characteristics of christian behaviour.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Someone can do anything, beat up people, sleep around, kill gays, blow up synagogues, rape babies, whatever, but as long as they claim to be Christian we cannot question their faith. Is that what you're saying, KC?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
he might be a Christian, but he certainly shows no characteristics of christian behaviour.
You are actually agreeing with me.
The church has always been full of Christians whom other Christians, as well as non- Christians, justifiably or not, have perceived as not living up to the standards of their faith.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Someone can do anything, beat up people, sleep around, kill gays, blow up synagogues, rape babies, whatever, but as long as they claim to be Christian we cannot question their faith. Is that what you're saying, KC?
All those Christians from all major traditions who across history have persecuted Jews, slaughtered pagans, kept slaves, committed sexual sins, prosecuted homosexuals and adulterers, and burned heretics at the stake, weren't "really" Christians?
Is that what you're saying, mousethief?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So are you going to answer my question or not?
[ 06. July 2016, 07:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
mousethief
I think the significance of repentance, and the fruits of repentance, seems to be getting lost. Which is where I agree with Josephine and you.
I still don't like the terminology of "leading people to Christ" but I've seen a number of guides about the way folks should act in such "leadings". Without exception, all of them have emphasised the central importance of repentance in the advice and guidance to be given to prospective converts. Example prayers of commitment invariably involve repentance.
Again, in nonconformity, while one may hope for the best about the sincerity of any human commitment to follow Christ, it is recognised, and wisely so, that sincerity cannot be safely assumed in all cases. Folks who are involved in the early stages of discipleship recognise this. At least, if they have any sense, they do.
Whatever may be going on in the heart of mind of Donald Trump (and based on past history and present pronouncements, there is room for both agnosticism and scepticism about that), I hold the view that James Dobson deserves criticism for his public pronouncements. Based as they seem to be on hearsay, they were at best naive and premature.
From the New Testament, it appears as though, in view of his past history, Paul was subjected to some pretty extensive nurturing and testing before he was trusted with more major responsibilities. He says as much in Galatians.
It would have been pretty remarkable if the issue of his sincerity was not in question, subject to examination and testing by early church leaders.
[ 06. July 2016, 08:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This is what I was getting at with my "Has God Failed Again?" thread.
If Christians don't act in a christian manner, what's the bloody point? Might as well not bother.
Or is this what Jesus was on about with his salt losing its saltiness thing? In which case, since he said it was worthless and thrown out, is there any real significance to being "Christian" but not acting like it?
Dobson meanwhile, quite apart from this Trump bollocks, deserves criticism in his own right for being an insufferable bigot.
[ 06. July 2016, 10:05: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The funny thing about Christianity is that it's full of commands and exhortations that seem pretty well impossible to satisfy overall.
I'm not sure if this is a pro or a con, but it does make it hard to establish who is or isn't a 'member' of the religion. If these guys, aren't Christians, what does that make any of us?
A huge number of the world's Christians are 'nominal', and many have an 'affiliation' to a church they rarely if ever attend. Even being 'born again' doesn't really tell us how an individual behaves, or how often s/he goes to church. So-called 'Christian countries' sanction all sorts of behaviour, so what's 'Christian' and what isn't?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I very much like Dallas Willard's definition of discipleship:
quote:
“A disciple is a person who has decided that the most important thing in their life is to learn how to do what Jesus said to do. A disciple is not a person who has things under control, or knows a lot of things. Disciples simply are people who are constantly revising their affairs to carry through on their decision to follow Jesus.”
So, yes, it follows that in the Church we are going to see lots of lots of people (pretty much everyone) who don't look exactly like the "ideal Christian" (i.e. a perfect reflection of Jesus' character). That happens for two reasons:
1. We don't all agree on what that (Christian discipleship) would look like. We have different views on dead-horse issues, "just war", all sorts of things. So we're going to live that out differently.
2. We are all in various stages of a life-long process. We are apprentices not master craftsmen.
But the thing that unites us-- the thing that makes us "disciples" is the intent and the actions taken to commit ourselves to that intent. We have formed the intent to follow Jesus, and are taking particular actions ("revising our state of affairs") to follow thru on that commitment.
Does Trump have an intent to follow Jesus? Of course, we can't really know that. But his infamous quote when asked about his own sin seems to suggest he does not. When he can't even articulate a coherent sentence about personal repentance, it's hard to see where he is "revising his state of affairs" to follow Jesus. We're not the judge, we can't know what's in his heart, but it doesn't seem likely. Rather, he seems the very epitome of what Bonhoeffer is talking about in his famous description of "cheap grace". Loves the free grace part, loves the blank-check forgiveness, not crazy about the discipleship part. Not surprising, since discipleship is all about giving control over your life to Christ. That's just not The Donald's M.O.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
he might be a Christian, but he certainly shows no characteristics of christian behaviour.
You are actually agreeing with me.
The church has always been full of Christians whom other Christians, as well as non- Christians, justifiably or not, have perceived as not living up to the standards of their faith.
Yes, but you seem to be missing this bit: quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If Christians don't act in a christian manner, what's the bloody point? Might as well not bother.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The funny thing about Christianity is that it's full of commands and exhortations that seem pretty well impossible to satisfy overall.
Yeah, overall. As in no one will tick all the boxes. But if you leave all, or nearly all of them blank....
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Does Trump have an intent to follow Jesus? Of course, we can't really know that. But his infamous quote when asked about his own sin seems to suggest he does not. When he can't even articulate a coherent sentence about personal repentance, it's hard to see where he is "revising his state of affairs" to follow Jesus. We're not the judge, we can't know what's in his heart, but it doesn't seem likely. Rather, he seems the very epitome of what Bonhoeffer is talking about in his famous description of "cheap grace".
Maybe Trump doesn't practise his righteousness openly (Matthew 6:1)? It could be that he gives a lot of his fabulous wealth to charity without making a song and dance about it. Maybe he's helped a lot of his friends out of difficult situations.
This is not to say that he ought to become president, or that he's a man of good taste, or possessed of great wisdom and awarness, etc....
Regarding 'cheap grace' I'm wondering if in Trump's childhood Presbyterianism there's a trace of Calvinist influence that made him unworried about repentance and the state of his soul. If your starting and ending point is that God's okay with you, why work yourself up about such things? I'm sure this isn't official Calvinist teaching, but one can imagine how an inattentive person who stops going to church at a relatively young age might take away this sort of message.
IME, you see, people with little adult exposure to sermons and religious material, etc., often feel that being a Christian is primarily about being a decent, helpful person (however that's defined). You're not an atheist (presumably) but neither do you find it necessary to concern yourself too deeply with 'religious' questions nor worry about your 'soul'.
The idea that we're sinners who need to turn to a Saviour in repentance is an aspect of orthodox religion that doesn't seem to have a lot of traction in 'popular (or 'diffusive') Christianity', AFAICS.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe Trump doesn't practise his righteousness openly (Matthew 6:1)? It could be that he gives a lot of his fabulous wealth to charity without making a song and dance about it. Maybe he's helped a lot of his friends out of difficult situations.
Actually it's just the opposite. He makes a big fanfare of giving money to charity, but seems to actually overstate the case.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe Trump doesn't practise his righteousness openly (Matthew 6:1)? It could be that he gives a lot of his fabulous wealth to charity without making a song and dance about it. Maybe he's helped a lot of his friends out of difficult situations.
Yes, he is a tremendous narcissist who just happens to hide this aspect of his life. The smokescreen of bragging about his charitable giving a only to have the record indicate he gives very little, my gods, that is genious level misdirection. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
X-post with mt, but the sarcasm warrants remaining.
[ 06. July 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe Trump doesn't practise his righteousness openly (Matthew 6:1)? It could be that he gives a lot of his fabulous wealth to charity without making a song and dance about it. Maybe he's helped a lot of his friends out of difficult situations.
As noted by Fred Clark, evangelicals are not noted for being shy about their faith nor is Donald Trump a shrinking violet about anything:
quote:
Dobson’s claim is particularly strange in this case because of the circumstances here. Being a secret born-again Christian is odd in any case — we evangelical types, as the name suggests, usually aren’t shy about telling others that’s who we are. Nor is Donald Trump, specifically, previously known for being reluctant to talk about himself. So the idea of a “secret” born-again Christian is weird and the idea of Donald Trump keeping a secret is even weirder.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And at some point this slides into the realm of complete imagination. Sure, you can believe Obama is the AntiChrist, but at some point there has to be data to make your case. (If he is, he had better hurry up, only six more months to destroy humanity as we know it...)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Does Trump have an intent to follow Jesus? Of course, we can't really know that. But his infamous quote when asked about his own sin seems to suggest he does not. When he can't even articulate a coherent sentence about personal repentance, it's hard to see where he is "revising his state of affairs" to follow Jesus. We're not the judge, we can't know what's in his heart, but it doesn't seem likely. Rather, he seems the very epitome of what Bonhoeffer is talking about in his famous description of "cheap grace".
Maybe Trump doesn't practise his righteousness openly (Matthew 6:1)? It could be that he gives a lot of his fabulous wealth to charity without making a song and dance about it. Maybe he's helped a lot of his friends out of difficult situations.
Possibly. But what I was referring to was more what we know he has said and done, not what we might suppose he has not. Again, his ability to even coherently answer a question about personal repentance (for anything-- if he has a blindspot about greed and pride, what about infidelity? prejudice? a 100 other sins large or small that might be categories for repentance?) suggests that he is not interested in "revising his state of affairs" to follow Jesus. Even if he has some hidden good deeds.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And at some point this slides into the realm of complete imagination. Sure, you can believe Obama is the AntiChrist, but at some point there has to be data to make your case. (If he is, he had better hurry up, only six more months to destroy humanity as we know it...)
Is this in the wrong place? This thread is about Trump and has stayed pretty focused on him.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Nope. You can construct any fantasy you want about Donald Trump, too. (I personally would favor one in which he dresses in spandex and a cape and fights crime late at night. The Trump Cave, think of it.) But if you want it to not be fiction, it does eventually have to have a supporting fact or two.
Today the son, Eric Trump, assured the world that his father has given millions and millions of dollars to charities. I would like to see the receipts, wouldn't you?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding 'cheap grace' I'm wondering if in Trump's childhood Presbyterianism there's a trace of Calvinist influence that made him unworried about repentance and the state of his soul. If your starting and ending point is that God's okay with you, why work yourself up about such things? I'm sure this isn't official Calvinist teaching, but one can imagine how an inattentive person who stops going to church at a relatively young age might take away this sort of message.
I'd say only if that church was completely atypical or if he was paying absolutely no real attention.
And when his family stopped attending First Presbyterian in Jamaica, Queens, they didn't stop attending church. They went to Norman Vincent Peale's church in Manhattan, which he still says is his church. (Of course, he also says he's Presbyterian, and it isn't a Presbyterian church.)
I'd wager that if anything, Peale's Power of Positive Thinking has much more to do with Trump's attitudes than any latent traces of Calvinism.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
This may be my liberal snottiness, but I suspect it has very little to do with anything he heard at either church.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Quite possibly. But two articles on the subject that I think are worth reading:
Politico: How Norman Vincent Peale Taught Donald Trump to Worship Himself
and
Washington Post: How Trump Got Religion—and why his legendary minister's son now rejects him
[ 07. July 2016, 02:23: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0