I’m not american nor evangelical (I’m a European lutheran), but I mainly find it stupid. Not even insulting: just plainly stupid.
When the MAGA Messiah was in exile during the Biden years, they hoped he’d come back, but didn’t fully believe it, so they pivoted to making him a religious icon, something the mainstream media mostly ignored.
Traitor General Michael Flynn operated a travelling roadshow of speakers, called the Re-Awaken America Tour (wouldn’t that make it Woke?), a rotating slate of conservative and evangelical speakers. The constant thread through all of it was Trump’s divinity.
All of the MAGA All-Stars spoke at one time or another, including Trump himself, but Lara Trump, Eric’s wife, was a regular. In her speech, Lara claimed that she was in regular, DIRECT contact with God, and he TOLD her that he had personally appointed Trump to be his chosen emissary on Earth, to lead America into its Christian future. Trump never paid much attention to Lara before, but he was so pleased with her efforts on the tour, that he made her chairman of the RNC.
Then he stole the presidency again, and the Prophet talk cooled down for a while. Now that things are heating up for him again, the religious talk is ramping up again. Some will back off if they think he’s doing God’s work. You don’t want interrupt God.
When he’s finally out, expect them to make hard pivot to religion this time. It will partially to discourage prosection - “You can’t prosecute a man of God!” - but mostly it will be about money.
A politician has a lot of regulations to deal with to collect money, but a religion has no rules. You can take as much money as you want, from any source in the world. There are literally no restrictions. Even better, there are no taxes, and no reporting of your revenues to anybody. It’s the perfect cover for a money launderer, which is Trump’s primary occupation.
When he is out, and struggling to stave off prosecution from every direction, expect him to start screaming for the Christians to save him from legal martyrdom by atheist Liberals! And also expect that many of them will buy it.
Are you asking Christians - followers of the teachings of Christ, or Christians - those who claim the name? The teachings of Christ call for individuals to be humble, peaceful, loving, accepting, selfless, love their enemies, forgiving, non-judgmental, and joyful. As someone who tries to follow Jesus’ teachings, I feel sorry for him. He seems to be a very troubled man.
Catholic here.
Frankly, I’m horrified. Not just at Trump’s aping of religious imagery, but also at how many former friends of mine still don’t see him for the evil that he really represents.
Did Trump actually post it? Is that supposed to be Epstein? I’m skeptical the president would post that (unless his dementia was affecting his recognition).
Usually with things like this it’s a retweet/boost of someone else’s post. Not sure in this case though
Edit: in this case it was posted by him.
I mean, by his account. By whoever actually posts to it.
Any Christian who didn’t have a clear problem with him by the end of 2015 is a complete piece of shit. Any Christian who voted for him deserves to go to hell.
Christian feelings towards evangelical “Christians” are bad, they are at least fake Christians. Now, regarding Trump, every religious person (again, evangelical so-called “Christians” are NOT religious people) hates Trump. He is everything that every major religion despises, such as greed, lying, adultery, hatred and many other characteristic traits of Trump.
I feel offended, disgusted, and entirely unsurprised. While this is probably the most blatant example of him blaspheming, it’s very far from the first. Even on top of that, him and all the other nationalists that work with him have been dragging God’s name through the mud for ages, really from long before Trump started politics. I can’t say for sure if they believe God exists or not, but they sure aren’t following him.
For context: I’m not American, but I’m very much Christian.
Textbook blasphemy.
That he’s anti Christ was clear from the “grab em by the pussy” talk. Also his marriage, infidelity record would’ve disqualified him for any clear eyed christian.
But sadly (depressingly) I know people who call themselves christian but are utterly blinded by anti abortion rhetoric, that they forget that living immigrant children are also lives worth saving. They cannot see Mexican or Guatemalan kids as creations of God. Or in my European case Syrian or African.
the prophecy was fulfilled…
Luke 23:34
Dividing up the clothing by lots is such an abomination.
Yeah. And Jesus still asked his true followers to forgive them.
Christians of Lemmy!
cough
foot shuffle
American Christians are just weird fascists a lot of the time that don’t actually follow christianity beyond telling gay people they’re going to hell. They’re fine with this.
American Christians are also the main Grindr base.
Is being gay one of those things that people think is in the bible based on the vibe but in fact the bible doesn’t express an opinion?
Nope, this one is in the bible (old testament), roughly in the same place where these are also listed as sins:
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Do not practice divination or seek omens.
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
And my favorite to point out to them:
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Also the same book prohibits eating shrimps, and many other things that they will quickly jump to say it doesn’t apply anymore, because most christians do a pick and choose of things in the bible they follow and things they don’t. There’s a game where you and a group of friends follow everything on the bible, the last one jailed wins.
My favorite are the ones who say Genesis isn’t literal because being a YEC is a step too far even for them, but then the whole point of Jesus gets awkward real fast when sin isn’t real.
Ezekiel 20 also says hello:
24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.
25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
You just gotta use a different position than you do with women.
Christianity is supposed to be the new testament, like what Jesus preached. he was against all the old ways that are in the old testament except the ten commandments. he went so far to offend the old ways, they had him killed.
I’ve seen some christians use Matthew 5 as a “Jesus came to add to what’s in the old testament”
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Romans 1:26-27 is not better.
Standing doggystyle is the gay road to heaven!
Hi, Episcopal priest here, who just so happened to do his master’s thesis on the topic of reconciling same-sex marriage with traditional Christian understandings of marriage. So to give you the quick answer: no, “being gay” is not in the Bible. If you want the long answer, here’s a link to a blog post I wrote about this: https://catecheticconverter.com/same-sex-marriage-and-the-church
“Being gay” isn’t in the Bible EXCEPT for
Leviticus 18-22
22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13
13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "
Romans 1:26-27
27 “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Jude 1:7
7 “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire”
1 Corinthians 6:9
10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 7:2
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”
I could go on, but you get the point. It’s clearly in the bible.
To be fair, the priest did treat some of those verses in the (badly) linked post, with the 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV explicitly calling “homosexuality” likely due to translation error
I think most of the points he argued are flimsy, because most are “well, actually, if we interpret it like this instead…”. Even the aforementioned translation error is a very weak argument that the original passage didn’t mean some sort of man-on-man action (arsen = man, koites (also the source of coitus) = bed; arsenokoites becoming something like “bed man”).
Is there an error in that link? I can’t get through for some reason
Same. When you try to copy it as a link, it comes up empty. But, copy text works
https://catecheticconverter.com/same-sex-marriage-and-the-church
It absolutely states that being gay is a grave sin and even calls for death for them in the old testament. However the message of Jesus in the new testament is one of radical forgiveness and non-judgement. Jesus is not afraid of those who commit sexual sins as seen by one of his companions being a prostitute. Jesus says to love everyone, forgive everyone and only hate the sin itself, but not the sinner. Judging a person is also considered a grave sin, something many modern christians have forgotten.
Therefore there is absolutely a theological basis for allowing homosexuals to attend church, following Jesus example of himself hanging out with prostitutes, another kind of sexual sinner. And since Jesus tells you to love everyone and judge no one there is no reason to hate or shun a gay person. This also applies to other sins. If you rob a bank you can still go to church as well, with the same argument.
However if you talk to a priest or pastor of a liberal LGBTQ affirming church and ask them if gays are allowed in the church they will shout a resounding yes. But if you press them on the question of if homosexual intercourse is a sin or not they will probably get uncomfortable and may give another answer. It’s a very hard biblical reality to deny.
However since you could in theory be gay and have a same sex partner and just simply not have sex with them you could give gay couples the benefit of the doubt. This is the basis for allowing gay marriage. However gay marriage stands on much more shakier grounds than simply allowing LGBTQs in the church, since marriage in the bible is explicitly stated as being between a man and a woman. Some prists/pastors however take a different route to justifying it and that involves reasoning that since God created all humans and some humans are gay, those people most have been created gay by god himself, and everything that God creates is good, therefore gays are good. This argument requires some reasoning outside the Bible but is used by many. Conservatives can attack such a stance saying it directly goes against direct bible quotes while also claiming one is not born gay but you turn gay by your own decision or others influence. Gayness would in this view be a free will sin rather than a god creates attribute.
I’m writing this comment as a non Christian who supports LGBTQ btw. Just trying to explain what I know about the discussion.
Oh no the bible says kill em all. It’s one of the main bullet points.
The problem is that it says it in the same general section that it talks about how to treat your slaves and things, so it’s really kind of ridiculous to cherry pick this one thing as something we should uphold today while ignoring everything else.
At least you could sort of respect it. They maybe delulu but they aren’t watered down faith tourists like the imbeciles who decided “god is love”.
No, they are. I guarantee they have sections of the bible they ignore out of convenience. They are not to be afforded even grudging respect.
It doesn’t.
Tell that to the people of Sodom.
Which was destroyed because they did not welcome strangers, but wanted to rape them, as Isaiah explained. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it.
Context matters. Turns out when you tell stories you kinda have to read the whole thing rather than just snippets.
I want to know what gomorrahy is.
It sure sounds like a word you can say with your mouth full though.
Since there’s not really that many Christians on Lemmy, I took the liberty of showing my former college roommate that image. He is a devout Catholic and also a two-time Trump voter, though I will note he has since soured on Trump since his re-election (for these and other reasons). His reaction was that the image was insulting to the Catholic religion and blasphemous.
Last year, I had also asked his opinion on Trump posting an AI-generated image of himself as pope when Pope Francis died, and he said that post was “not cool”. He said that to imply one could simply become pope without first rising through the ranks of the Catholic Church, especially someone as unpious as Trump, was disrespectful to those who dedicate their careers to the clerical service, and he found the image offensive.
and then he voted for him a 3rd time
He was too young to vote in 2016. He voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. I asked him a week or so ago whether he plans to vote Republican in the upcoming election. He says he plans to throw his ballot into the bin.
Ah yes, a rational response in a democracy
His reaction was that the image was insulting to the Catholic religion and blasphemous.
You friend’s reaction to the image was insulting and blasphemous? Or, was his reaction to the image itself was insulting and blasphemous?
This doesn’t even make sense as pedantry because the “that” in their comment wouldn’t make sense unless it was the latter.
Well the “that” could be that the friend’s comment was that the image was insulting to Catholics, or the “that” could be referring to the specific reaction. It basically needed some better comma usage because there is a difference between:
His reaction was, that the image was, insulting to the Catholic religion and blasphemous.
and
His reaction was that, the image, was insulting to the Catholic religion and blasphemous.
I guess the vagueness comes from the double “was” usage.
There is the SLIGHT possibility that we are loving in bible times, and trump is the messiah, and like the bible, everyone hated him.
I will only believe that if he comes back from the dead though
Trump is just an old man with obvious cognitive decline, and possibly alzheimers like his father.
If hes the “messiah”, I want nothing to do with him bcz he’s a petty nasty person and represents the worst qualities in a human being that could possibly be expressed.
110% you are right, but I can only think of that scene in Dune part 2.
Of course he is humble. That proves he is the messiah…
My mom was Team Kirk when he died. I wonder if The Wire has an an tire come darin for Dune part 2 because it is anti-religion. I can’t find a review on YouTube, and no way in hell I am searching facebook to search for it. (Mom listens to daily wire on facebook daily)
This would be funny if your hypothetical situation weren’t so easily faked.
I’m pretty sure they didn’t have deep faeks in 33AD /s
