Jump to content


Weird Time for Christians

Guy Chamberlin

By Guy Chamberlin,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted

The crazy thing about this Falwell story is not what happened between (what I presume are) consenting adults. While this is a kink, and Falwell has spent his "career" shaming others for their sexuality, that's the lesser revelation here.

 

The big revelation in this story is that Michael Cohen, Trump's Fixer, got ahold of the photos in 2016, and then... mysteriously and shockingly... Falwell abruptly endorses Trump, which is largely credited for swinging the evangelical vote so overwhelmingly to Trump. 

 

I mean, if those dots can't be connected to blackmail, I don't know what can. 

 

 

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment

TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

The crazy thing about this Falwell story is not what happened between (what I presume are) consenting adults. While this is a kink, and Falwell has spent his "career" shaming others for their sexuality, that's the lesser revelation here.

 

The big revelation in this story is that Michael Cohen, Trump's Fixer, got ahold of the photos in 2016, and then... mysteriously and shockingly... Falwell abruptly endorses Trump, which is largely credited for swinging the evangelical vote so overwhelmingly to Trump. 

 

I mean, if those dots can't be connected to blackmail, I don't know what can. 

 

 

Yep, Mr TWO Corinthians may have put a little pressure on Falwell through his fixer.   We all remember it was at Liberty where the president made his Biblical gaff.  Of course, he then holds the Bible upside down for his infamous photo op in front of the church. 

But as he said in the interview, he doesn't have a favorite Bible verse - he likes it all.  :blink:

Link to comment

TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ummmmm.....:facepalm:

 

 

Different granddaughters  My post was of an oped from  Jerushah Duford.   I like my version better :D

 

https://news.yahoo.com/one-billy-grahams-granddaughters-praised-051400003.html

Quote

 

Cissie Graham Lynch and Jerushah Duford are both granddaughters of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, but they stand on opposite ends of the Trump spectrum.

Lynch delivered an address at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday night, where she called President Trump a "fierce advocate" of faith, condemned transgender inclusion, and accused Democrats of trying to make "faith organizations pay for abortion-inducing drugs," apparently referring to birth control, which does not induce abortion.

Duford also made her political stance clear on Tuesday, writing in an op-ed for USA Today that "every big decision" in her life has been "guided by faith," but now she feels "disoriented as I watch the church I have always served turn their eyes away from everything it teaches." Many Christian women have been telling her they also have experienced a "tug at their spirit," felt when they hear Trump say things about "government housing having no place in America's suburbs" or his border wall, "designed to keep out the very people scripture tells us to welcome."

Seeing Trump holding up a Bible in Lafayette Square earlier this summer, minutes after peaceful protesters were tear gassed, should have offended "anyone intimately familiar with the word in it," Duford said. Yet few evangelical leaders have come forward to say Trump's "behavior is antithetical to the Jesus we serve." Because of this, the "entire world has watched the term 'evangelical' become synonymous with hypocrisy and disingenuousness," Duford declared, and "my faith and my church have become a laughing stock."

 

Duford does not want Christian women to ignore the "disrespect and misogyny" being shown by Trump, and she emphasized that they "represent God before we represent any political party or leader." In November, she said, evangelical women must "embrace your inner tug, and allow it to lead you to use the power of your God-given voice and not allow Trump to lead this country for another four years." Read the entire op-ed at USA Today.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Moiraine Head Coach

Moiraine

Posted
Posted

This goes much farther back than Trump, but why do Christians want the government to be involved in deciding who can and cannot get married, but tend to be against "government handouts" even though Jesus said to help the poor?

Seems to me lots of Christians pick and choose where they want separation of church and state and it is not based on the Bible. It's based on their social/political beliefs at the time.

Also, Christians who say it's their responsibility to care for the poor and not the government's must really like inefficiency and increased poverty. Not having safety nets provided by the government would lead to the latter.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

funhusker All-American

funhusker

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

This goes much farther back than Trump, but why do Christians want the government to be involved in deciding who can and cannot get married, but tend to be against "government handouts" even though Jesus said to help the poor?

Seems to me lots of Christians pick and choose where they want separation of church and state and it is not based on the Bible. It's based on their social/political beliefs at the time.

Also, Christians who say it's their responsibility to care for the poor and not the government's must really like inefficiency and increased poverty. Not having safety nets provided by the government would lead to the latter.

I've heard the argument in reverse also.  Why do "dems" want the government out of marriage but involved in charity?  I think they have a fair point as long as we are defending policies with religion.  The hypocrisy goes both ways within that framework.

 

But what seems to get lost in the conversation, is that policy promoting "charity" is used to make a community better for the sake of the community which is run with a representative government.   Not for the sake of the soul.  

 

Bottom line: I truly believe "Christians" that believe charity should be left to the individual don't really care about their community, they just care about their souls.  They just want to have more left after giving "all they can"...

Link to comment
Moiraine Head Coach

Moiraine

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, funhusker said:

I've heard the argument in reverse also.  Why do "dems" want the government out of marriage but involved in charity?  I think they have a fair point as long as we are defending policies with religion.  The hypocrisy goes both ways within that framework.

 

But what seems to get lost in the conversation, is that policy promoting "charity" is used to make a community better for the sake of the community which is run with a representative government.   Not for the sake of the soul.  

 

Bottom line: I truly believe "Christians" that believe charity should be left to the individual don't really care about their community, they just care about their souls.  They just want to have more left after giving "all they can"...

 

The reverse is a silly argument. Democrats don't tend to be the ones that base their decisions on religious text. So I have no idea where the hypocrisy claim comes from. Democrats want there to be welfare programs and not disallow gays to get married because they think those are good ideas. They aren't arguing either based on what's sinful or not.

Christians wants gays to not get married because they think it's sinful. The ones that don't want the government to help people don't want it because they want low taxes and believe in meritocracy. When you tell them Jesus wants the poor to be helped they claim He doesn't want the government to do it. And if that's the case they should also not want government to decide gays can't get married. They are inconsistent here. Democrats are not.

Link to comment
funhusker All-American

funhusker

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

The reverse is a silly argument. Democrats don't tend to be the ones that base their decisions on religious text. So I have no idea where the hypocrisy claim comes from. Democrats want there to be welfare programs and not disallow gays to get married because they think those are good ideas. They aren't arguing either based on what's sinful or not.

Christians wants gays to not get married because they think it's sinful. The ones that don't want the government to help people don't want it because they want low taxes and believe in meritocracy. When you tell them Jesus wants the poor to be helped they claim He doesn't want the government to do it. And if that's the case they should also not want government to decide gays can't get married. They are inconsistent here. Democrats are not.

Did you read my post past the first sentence?

Link to comment
funhusker All-American

funhusker

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

Yes.

Then why the need to rephrase what I said?  Much more eloquently though, I might add :)

 

Citing the Bible for reasoning behind policy is stupid, no matter the party.  Citing evidence of community improvement is solid reasoning in policy making.

 

Edit: what I'm trying to say: a Democrat citing the Bible as he/she votes for Medicare For All is no different than a Republican citing the Bible for banning abortions.  Religion that is open to interpretation isn't a sound basis for governing. 

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...