Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

[Subduction Zone]

No, that's a specific view of Trinitarianism. That's commonly been viewed as blasphemous by some because they believe Jehovah the Father is god and he alone is god.
But even among Trinitarians it used to be very commonly believed, with many still believing it, that when we die we die and stay dead until the Day of Resurrection. Many also believe there is no Hell but rather the second death, which is eternal destruction and darkness.

The vast majority of Christians do accept the Trinity. Or at least the churches that they belong to do so. It is the more extreme sects, such as the JW's that reject the trinity. And both sides think that the other is blasphemous.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that's a specific view of Trinitarianism. That's commonly been viewed as blasphemous by some because they believe Jehovah the Father is god and he alone is god.

One thing I've noticed about Christians is that
various groups decry others as wrong or even
Satanic. Where do the get these views?
The Bible.

But even among Trinitarians it used to be very commonly believed, with many still believing it, that when we die we die and stay dead until the Day of Resurrection. Many also believe there is no Hell but rather the second death, which is eternal destruction and darkness.

So some don't believe in Hell.
They're likely the apostates....the liberal
new age woke commie East Coast elites.

 

[Ella S.]

This looks like another in a seemingly endless succession of leftist hate-threads directed against political opponents.

It's ironic that people who are so convinced (falsely in my opinion) of their own intellectual superiority endlessly preach to their activist choir and make no attempt whatsoever to reach out and try to convince people who don't already believe as they do. It's just non-stop insults 24-7.

If threads like this are meant as evangelism, then it's p*ss-poor and counter-productive. It just hardens your enemies against you.

If this behavior is meant to express group-solidarity and support, then maybe the complaint in the opening post has some merit. Do you really feel so weak and so threatened by people who think and believe differently than you? What happened to all the pious talk about "inclusivity" and "diversity"?

I used to stay out of political threads on this forum for this very reason. Even now, I try to be more picky about which ones I participate in and how.

I'm not even right-wing, but the quality of discourse in threads like these is absolute garbage, in my opinion.

I'm genuinely sorry you have been subjected to this thread. "Counter-productive" is an extremely polite way of putting it.

That said, none of this violates beliefs in inclusivity and diversity. Inclusivity and diversity mostly surround aspects of people that they have no control over, such as their ethnicity, skin color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability, and so on. People can choose what political values to affirm, so that's not really as relevant.

When it's about respecting ideological difference, it's usually called "tolerance," such as in the phrase "religious tolerance." Included in the concept of tolerance is the "paradox of tolerance," which states that tolerant people cannot tolerate intolerance, otherwise they will self-destruct. So even tolerance has its limits as an ideal. If one is genuinely tolerant, for instance, one would have to oppose the ideology of intolerant groups like the KKK or the Proud Boys.

 

[Father Heathen]

I used to stay out of political threads on this forum for this very reason. Even now, I try to be more picky about which ones I participate in and how.

I'm not even right-wing, but the quality of discourse in threads like these is absolute garbage, in my opinion.

I'm genuinely sorry you have been subjected to this thread. "Counter-productive" is an extremely polite way of putting it.

That said, none of this violates beliefs in inclusivity and diversity. Inclusivity and diversity mostly surround aspects of people that they have no control over, such as their ethnicity, skin color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability, and so on. People can choose what political values to affirm, so that's not really as relevant.

When it's about respecting ideological difference, it's usually called "tolerance," such as in the phrase "religious tolerance." Included in the concept of tolerance is the "paradox of tolerance," which states that tolerant people cannot tolerate intolerance, otherwise they will self-destruct. So even tolerance has its limits as an ideal. If one is genuinely tolerant, for instance, one would have to oppose the ideology of intolerant groups like the KKK or the Proud Boys.

I thought this thread was pretty rad.

 

[Ella S.]

There's a reason why liberal and moderate Christianity is declining but conservative Christianity is growing, it's because it offers a toxic and shallow version of the religion that appeals to less sophisticated people. No coincidentally these people tend to support Trump and other morally questionable politicians. Christianity is a product like any other and the customers want what they want. More want a bad product and they are getting it.

It's also worth noting that education is negatively correlated with religious affiliation.

More people are starting to agree with the academic consensus that theistic evolution is a pseudoscience and that there is no afterlife. These are sort of the last threads of refined, academic Christian philosophy, which has already been increasingly considering more and more of the Bible to be metaphorical.

Most of the educated Christians which remain tend to be pantheists, deists, and agnostics. Christianity has become more of a subculture than a religion for them, hence the term "Cultural Christians." As the Christian culture becomes more radical about its literal belief in an ongoing spiritual war, these non-believers are abandoning the mantle.

So I think you're right that the toxicity of modern Christian movements are driving people away from identifying as Christian, but I think it's important to keep in mind that this is rarely due to the toxicity causing people to question the coherency of their beliefs. More often, we're seeing marginal Christians silently distance themselves from a Christianity that has doubled-down on doctrines they don't believe in.

This has hardly any effect on radical strains of Christianity that promote, for instance, anti-intellectualism and fideism since they are predisposed against education.

That isn't to say that all remaining Christians are evangelical fundamentalists or anything, obviously. I just think there's a clear reason to the pattern of change we're seeing.

 

[1213]

... the teachings and examples of Christ are antithetical to conservative ideology. ..

Why do you think so? Please show one example.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why do you think so? Please show one example.

Post #15

 

[PureX]

He's shocked! Shocked he says! To discover there is gambling going on in this casino!

 

[F1fan]

It's also worth noting that education is negatively correlated with religious affiliation.

More people are starting to agree with the academic consensus that theistic evolution is a pseudoscience and that there is no afterlife. These are sort of the last threads of refined, academic Christian philosophy, which has already been increasingly considering more and more of the Bible to be metaphorical.

Most of the educated Christians which remain tend to be pantheists, deists, and agnostics. Christianity has become more of a subculture than a religion for them, hence the term "Cultural Christians." As the Christian culture becomes more radical about its literal belief in an ongoing spiritual war, these non-believers are abandoning the mantle.

So I think you're right that the toxicity of modern Christian movements are driving people away from identifying as Christian, but I think it's important to keep in mind that this is rarely due to the toxicity causing people to question the coherency of their beliefs. More often, we're seeing marginal Christians silently distance themselves from a Christianity that has doubled-down on doctrines they don't believe in.

This has hardly any effect on radical strains of Christianity that promote, for instance, anti-intellectualism and fideism since they are predisposed against education.

That isn't to say that all remaining Christians are evangelical fundamentalists or anything, obviously. I just think there's a clear reason to the pattern of change we're seeing.

My anut and uncle were formerly Baptists, and full bore creationists, and political conservatives to the extreme. At some point the converted to some fringe orthodox version of Christianity which I can't remember, and they are full on Trump supporters. My dad is a republicans and historically moderate, but he has gone totally FOX News since the 2020 election. Oddly he was never religious, and I wonder if his going off the deep end has to do with aging and fears of death. He's not the kind of guy that will talk about it, so all I can do is wonder.

When it's about respecting ideological difference, it's usually called "tolerance," such as in the phrase "religious tolerance." Included in the concept of tolerance is the "paradox of tolerance," which states that tolerant people cannot tolerate intolerance, otherwise they will self-destruct. So even tolerance has its limits as an ideal. If one is genuinely tolerant, for instance, one would have to oppose the ideology of intolerant groups like the KKK or the Proud Boys.

I've pondered the dilemma of tolerating intolerance. The issue seems superficial to me, because if a person is tolerant that doesn't mean they are naive and guilible, it means they operate with an open mind, and that itself is a complex and sophisticated approach. As we see with many believers who challenge atheists to be open minded to the possibility of some God existing, they are themselves often not open to the possibility they are mistaken in their religious belief. It is this lack of fairness and equality that the tolerant find disturbing. Tolerant people are tolerant because they extend a trust that others will be fair and open. That tolerant folks are critical of intolerant people doesn't suggest a paradox to me, rather that the mutual trust, or social contract, isn't being honored by others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My anut and uncle were formerly Baptists, and full bore creationists, and political conservatives to the extreme. At some point the converted to some fringe oorthodox version of Christianity which I can't remember, and they are full on Trump supporters. My dad is a republicans and historically moderate, but he has gone totally FOX News since the 2020 election. Oddly he was never religious, and I wonder if his going off the deep end has to do with aging and fears of death. He's not the kind of guy that will talk about it, so all I can do is wonder.

I've pondered the dilemma of tolerating intolerance. The issue seems superficial to me, because if a person is tolerant that doesn't mean they are naive and guilible, it means they operate with an open mind, and that itself is a complex and sophisticated approach. As we see with many believers who challenge atheists to be open minded to the possibility of some God existing, they are themselves not often not open to the possibility they are mistaken in their religious belief. It is this lack of fairness and equality that the tolerant find disturbing. Tolerant people are tolerant because they extend a trust that others will be fair and open. That tolerant folks are critical of intolerant people doesn't suggest a paradox to me, rather that the mutual trust, or social contract, isn't being honored by others.

Trump drove people two ways. My family was lucky. We were scattered all over the spectrum and he drove the more conservative of us over to the Democrats

 

[Viker]

MSN

Not surprising considering that the teachings and examples of Christ are antithetical to conservative ideology. If he were to return today, the right would reject him for being "woke" and "socialist".

Simple. They've chosen a new messiah. Jesus is obsolete to them. Trump is their Christ, now. Evangelical ministries had better get with the times before they're replaced, too.

 

[Father Heathen]

Simple. They've chosen a new messiah. Jesus is obsolete to them. Trump is their Christ, now. Evangelical ministries had better get with the times before they're replaced, too.

If that's true, then we better grab a cross, some nails, and a spear to complete the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wish that wasn't true. But I guess that I can deal with Karen McDougal as a patron saint.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Trump drove people two ways. My family was lucky. We were scattered all over the spectrum and he drove the more conservative of us over to the Democrats

Donald Trump had the opposite effect on my adoptive family. They criticized me, belittled me, and ostracized me from the family because I refused to support him and vote for him. I'm estranged from both sides of my family. I had one aunt who went against the family in an effort to salvage our shaky relationship, but she eventually turned on me. I suppose she gave into the pressure, or maybe she was threatened with estrangement too. While there is another painful situation between my family and me that contributed to our estrangement, the fact that they treated me like dirt and bullied me because I wouldn't support Trump was one of the main reasons why I cut them out of my life. The deciding factor for me was when they intentionally excluded me from our annual family reunion in the summer following Trump's election. I later found out from a friend of the family that I wasn't invited to the reunion because they didn't want me there and my presence would have upset them. The verbal abuse, bullying, and harassment I endured from them significantly increased after I voted for President Biden. I had to block their phone numbers and block them on Facebook. However, the worst experience for me was having to call the police on my cousin because he threatened to physically hurt me after he found out that I voted for Biden. My cousin wanted to hurt me.

I also had several conservative Christian friends whom I've known for years turn their backs on me because I wouldn't support Trump. I had to block their phone numbers and block them on Facebook as well. The truth of the matter is that my relatives' undying devotion to Trump was the breaking point in the destruction of the unstable relationship I had with them. He hoodwinked them, and they turned on me without giving it a second thought. He hookwinked them, but he drove me to the Democratic Party after I had been a conservative for 26 years (1992–2018). The 2016 presidential election was the very first election in which I didn't vote Republican. I voted for a third party. I voted Democratic for the first time in the 2020 presidential election. I registered with the Democratic Party shortly before the 2018 midterm elections. I have no intention of returning to the Republican Party as long as Trump is controlling it.

 

[Yazata]

I used to stay out of political threads on this forum for this very reason. Even now, I try to be more picky about which ones I participate in and how.

The problem with doing that is that it simply surrenders the board to the lowest common denominator, the abusive loud-mouths and idiots.

I'm not even right-wing, but the quality of discourse in threads like these is absolute garbage, in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more when it comes to poltical discourse. Discussion of religion on RF is actually pretty good in many cases.

I'm genuinely sorry you have been subjected to this thread. "Counter-productive" is an extremely polite way of putting it.

I find my reaction to many RF posters is increasingly contempt. Worse, I find myself hating them just as passionately as they hate me. (Hate is contagious.) And that's not a change that I welcome in myself. So perhaps the best solution for me personally is to put LOTS of people on ignore. I'll still participate in the divisive threads, but won't interact with idiots. I'm already doing that, sadly because sometimes some of them actually say smart things about other topics.

I wouldn't put somebody on ignore simply for disagreeing with me in an intelligent and civil manner. But when it's just insults and misrepresentations, onto ignore they go.

That said, none of this violates beliefs in inclusivity and diversity. Inclusivity and diversity mostly surround aspects of people that they have no control over, such as their ethnicity, skin color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability, and so on. People can choose what political values to affirm, so that's not really as relevant.

I couldn't disagree with you more at that point. I disagree with some of your examples. But more importantly, of course inclusivity and diversity are relevant to political discussion. How else can an ostensible "democracy" continue to function if expression of political differences isn't allowed? The alternative would seem to be some kind of 1984-style intellectual authoritarianism where words are redefined for political purposes, with the intention of making some kinds of thoughts difficult if not impossible.

When it's about respecting ideological difference, it's usually called "tolerance," such as in the phrase "religious tolerance."

Redefining words. I still use the word 'diverse' in the traditional way:

diverse

dĭ-vûrs′, dī-, dī′vûrs″

adjective​

1. Differing one from another.
2. Made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements.
3. Relating to or containing people from different ethnicities and social backgrounds.

Included in the concept of tolerance is the "paradox of tolerance," which states that tolerant people cannot tolerate intolerance, otherwise they will self-destruct.

Which is why I tried to base my condemnation up above not on people expressing political viewpoints different than my own, but on how those viewpoints are expressed. If people express viewpoints different than mine, I might present a counter-view, but I wouldn't condemn their participation in a thread or the thread's very existence.

So even tolerance has its limits as an ideal. If one is genuinely tolerant, for instance, one would have to oppose the ideology of intolerant groups like the KKK or the Proud Boys.

Free speech is just onanism if it only applies to people that we agree with. It derives whatever meaning it has in cases where the speaker is saying something that we viscerally oppose.

Again, the solution isn't to silence other people's ideas, as long as they are lawful. It is to address their actions. (There are already laws addressing advocating criminal activity, which would seem to be outside US First Amendment protections regardless of the perceived righteousness of the cause that motivates the proposed criminal activity.)

advocacy of illegal action

www.law.cornell.edu

If some group like "antifa" wants to oppose a conservative demonstration by peacefully counterdemonstrating, then that would seem to be their right. But as soon as they try to violently assault those conservatives, the conservatives are justified in defending themselves.

If that's where we are at, if blood in the streets is the only solution remaining to our growing chasm of differences, then democracy would seem to have failed.

I'm saddened seeing that devolution happening right here on RF, which once seemed to be a haven from that kind of thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You might want to put me on ignore now. I disagree with you emphatically.

If threads like this are meant as evangelism, then it's p*ss-poor and counter-productive. It just hardens your enemies against you.

No, not evangelism. My political posts aren't intended for conservatives to read, as you can see from this one, which is likely to offend. They're for like-minded people. I'm putting out provocative ideas and doing so with a forceful demeanor and offering them as an example to those who for whom they resonate - people that still feel the need to try to reach out to these conservative, like people in a bad marriage that will do anything to restore unity long after that is no longer possible, and the shortest path to resolution is divorce. More marriage counselors making nicey-nicey with an enemy just extends the suffering until one figures out what's possible and what's not.

What happened to all the pious talk about "inclusivity" and "diversity"?

Ella already explained (Popper's paradox). The right misunderstood the offer when made by Biden, which was declined anyway. It was never to include the intolerant, and unity is only desirable if the right and left have something in common, as with a marriage. I see the same irreconcilable differences with the American right as I do with Putin and the Taliban. I'm not looking for inclusivity or unity there, just the minimum conflict, which I arranged for myself by leaving America. I didn't when I left and still don't want them as neighbors. Nor do I want their votes affecting me, but I have complete confidence in the American electorate's intelligence and moral rectitude to expect them to give the government back to the Republicans before long. About half prefer Trump to Biden despite Trumps crimes and perpetual losing and Biden's successes until 2022 and the return of the Republicans to the House majority, so no, just no, hell no to that. You'll see the inclusivity and diversity possible under that agenda and those values as the right transform America into a Handmaiden's hellscape in the image of Trumpism to own the libs - and here's the fun part - those Republican voters, too.

So no to making nice to those people. No evangelism.

I'm not a Christian, but perhaps Jesus might have told you to be less concerned with other people's sins and more attentive to your own

Don't worry, amigo, and thanks for the unsolicited life advice from your dubious source, but we've got this. Jesus advises turning the other cheek here. Jesus advises loving enemies. These are two terrible ideas that somehow have been accepted without question by most. And though I repudiate the vile conservatives described by the pastor in the OP, they're right about bringing an olive branch to a gunfight. Tolerance is for others like-minded people, not these people, and I'm as intolerant of them as they are of me.

 

[Ella S.]

The problem with doing that is that it simply surrenders the board to the lowest common denominator, the abusive loud-mouths and idiots.

That's not a real problem. The internet is full of that. It only appeals to people who are looking for that.

I find my reaction to many RF posters is increasingly contempt. Worse, I find myself hating them just as passionately as they hate me. (Hate is contagious.) And that's not a change that I welcome in myself. So perhaps the best solution for me personally is to put LOTS of people on ignore. I'll still participate in the divisive threads, but won't interact with idiots. I'm already doing that, sadly because sometimes some of them actually say smart things about other topics.

I wouldn't put somebody on ignore simply for disagreeing with me in an intelligent and civil manner. But when it's just insults and misrepresentations, onto ignore they go.

Or you could just not hate them.

I couldn't disagree with you more at that point. I disagree with some of your examples. But more importantly, of course inclusivity and diversity are relevant to political discussion. How else can an ostensible "democracy" continue to function if expression of political differences isn't allowed? The alternative would seem to be some kind of 1984-style intellectual authoritarianism where words are redefined for political purposes, with the intention of making some kinds of thoughts difficult if not impossible.

Inclusivity and diversity are not synonyms for democracy. They're different concepts.

Redefining words. I still use the word 'diverse' in the traditional way:

diverse

dĭ-vûrs′, dī-, dī′vûrs″

adjective​

1. Differing one from another.
2. Made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements.
3. Relating to or containing people from different ethnicities and social backgrounds.

Definition 3 is exactly how I'm using it and how it's normally used in political discourse.

Which is why I tried to base my condemnation up above not on people expressing political viewpoints different than my own, but on how those viewpoints are expressed. If people express viewpoints different than mine, I might present a counter-view, but I wouldn't condemn their participation in a thread or the thread's very existence.



Free speech is just onanism if it only applies to people that we agree with. It derives whatever meaning it has in cases where the speaker is saying something that we viscerally oppose.

I don't agree with "free speech." "Free speech" is a euphemistic misnomer to refer to the narrow band of speech that governments allow people to have. It's not really free.

You can't recommend people to commit crime or explain how to commit crime. You can't incite a riot. You can't blackmail or threaten figures in positions of authority. You can't even protest if it's too disruptive or inconvenient to others. So all actually meaningful courses of political action are outlawed by "free speech," leaving you with only the ability to politely request people to do what you want and have your letters thrown into the trash by their secretary.

What "free speech" actually protects is hate speech and disinformation, which I think are morally unacceptable.

"Free speech" is, in my opinion, a terrible ideal that most people haven't really stopped to think about.

Again, the solution isn't to silence other people's ideas, as long as they are lawful. It is to address their actions. (There are already laws addressing advocating criminal activity, which would seem to be outside US First Amendment protections regardless of the perceived righteousness of the cause that motivates the proposed criminal activity.)

advocacy of illegal action

www.law.cornell.edu

Nobody is silencing anyone here.

If some group like "antifa" wants to oppose a conservative demonstration by peacefully counterdemonstrating, then that would seem to be their right. But as soon as they try to violently assault those conservatives, the conservatives are justified in defending themselves.

If that's where we are at, if blood in the streets is the only solution remaining to our growing chasm of differences, then democracy would seem to have failed.

Democracy has failed.

I don't think violence out on the streets is a solution to the failure of democracy. I agree that political violence between civilian groups isn't an effective means for change. Historically, it tends to precede some dictator using the chaos as an excuse to gain power so they can weaponize the state for their own purposes under the guise of maintaining order. Napoleon and Hitler are good examples of that.

Rather, what you're seeing is a consequence of the failure of democracy. Sitting down and talking things out isn't a practical strategy in the real world, where a great number of people are never going to share your ideal for reasonable discourse.

Personally, I think there are some topics that are completely unreasonable to have a discussion over, because there are positions that are inherently unreasonable, like ethno-nationalism and eugenics. Bad faith actors are more likely to use those debates to push political propaganda than to actually have an open-minded, good faith discussion, so it's even outright irresponsible to try to debate with them sometimes. That's where reality steps in to chop down the idealism.

I'm saddened seeing that devolution happening right here on RF, which once seemed to be a haven from that kind of thing.

It's only going to get worse.

We've spent so much time championing open discussion that we've left huge gaps for bad faith actors and outright hate groups to abuse the system that we've put in place. The leftist attacks you're seeing is the backlash. This is the death rattle of reason.

Civilized debate was never going to last, because it fails to take into account the paradox of tolerance. It's not a solution to tolerance. It's not a source or a shining example of tolerance. It's self-destructive because it inherently gives credence to intolerance, and we've let it be undermined.

I think that the solutions you're proposing are actually the source of the problem. Don't get me wrong, I think open-minded, civil debate is important, but I don't think it's a way to change people's minds. You can't change people's minds unless they want their mind to be changed. Debate is more useful for comparing arguments for the sake of personal research than as a means for activism or genuine truth-seeking.

This was inevitable, in my opinion, especially in a post-truth world. Society is breaking down. Many people in other countries think it's only a US problem, but it's only because these issues haven't caught up with them yet. Right now, I see the same warning signs in their discourse that we missed in ours.

My advice? Relax and try to enjoy yourself as civilization collapses from politics and climate change. There's nothing any of us can do about it now. Spend your time on the things that enhance your life. Don't waste it on a flame war on the internet that's not going anywhere unless you enjoy that. It doesn't contribute to some higher purpose; it only makes you miserable.

We can hope that everything blows over, but it seems more likely to blow down to me.

Obviously, all of this is merely my opinion and perception. It would be neat if I was wrong and reality was more optimistic than I give it credit for. The more time passes, though, the more it seems like I'm eerily accurate here, in my experience. That could just be my biases, but it's all I have to go on.

 

[Lekatt]

No matter how much conservatives want to halt progress they will not be able to do so. The history of us humans is progress. I guess I am woke because I like progress.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What "free speech" actually protects is hate speech and disinformation, which I think are morally unacceptable. "Free speech" is, in my opinion, a terrible ideal that most people haven't really stopped to think about.

Good argument. I agree, and have said so:

"My position on free speech is evolving with the times, especially in America. Before the Internet, a person was only dangerous if he were something like a demagoguing US Senator or a fascistic celebrity aviator. The voices of reason outnumbered them and successfully contained them with speech of their own.

"Also, people were more fit to be members of a democracy - better educated, better news sources - and subject to much less indoctrination.

"Now, I don't trust free speech. Look at what Trump did with it. And Bannon. Both extremely destructive.

"I have no answers - it already might be too late to prevent disaster with or without free speech - and I understand the potential danger of reining in speech, but right now, free speech poses an existential threat, a clear and present danger, and the notion that I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to speak doesn't make sense anymore. Yet, the Republicans are coming, and in their hands, censoring will be harmful to democracy.

"I just read this, which reinforces my view. Musk promotes what he calls absolute free speech. This must be what he means:

"Musk didn’t wait long to start spreading his lies. One of his first despicable acts was to promote the provable lie that Paul Pelosi’s attacker was really his gay lover. Since we already know who Pelosi’s attacker really is and the real reason why he was there — to serve his MAGA master Donald Trump with typically glassy-eyed obeisance — Musk's promotion of the lie wasn’t just irresponsible, it was hateful. “Reality,” as NBC News senior reporter Ben Collins puts it, “cannot exist anymore because it cannot catch up with lies on the internet."​

 

[1213]

Post #15

Sorry, I don't see how they would be in contradiction with conservative standards.