MSNBC’s Morning Joe rains hell on right-wing Christians for choosing Trump’s 'blasphemy' over Christ's teachings

[Ridgerunner]

Why do we have to vote a certain way given how little Republicans actually do about abortion or be damned?

People who vote for abortion candidates aren’t “damned”, irrevocably. They can confess that sin and resolve never to do it again.

Everything that has been done in this country, and it has been a lot, has always been done by Republicans over the staunch opposition of Democrats.

free pre-natal care may greatly reduce abortion

No evidence for this, and plenty that’s contrary. Abortion is most prevalent, per capita, in the black community, where free natal care is also most prevalent.

instead of answering your posts in this thread, can I ask that we get back to the topic of this thread, which is Trump’s behavior at the National Prayer Breakfast, mocking the keynote speaker’s serious citation of the Gospel?

Plenty of Christians make jokes about the bible or salvation. How many Catholics have you heard say something like “I just hope I can make it to Purgatory”. That’s not the proper salvation goal at all, but it’s just a joke on one’s own sinfulness. It’s self-humbling.

And that’s what Trump did. He confessed how difficult it is for him to forgive those who have spent three years trying to ruin him. Saying it’s hard to forgive that, especially as a joke, is harmless. But I understand that Democrats want to make it seem like blasphemy because they do that kind of thing with everything he says or does. They hate him and the people who support him, and nothing will change that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quoting 19th-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, Brooks defined contempt as “the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.”

You mean like “basket of deplorables”, “bitter clingers”, “smelly Walmart shoppers”, farmers who lack grey matter and only know enough to drop a seed in a hole in the ground". Would those things qualify?

 

[dvdjs]

You mean like “basket of deplorables", “bitter clingers"

At long last, you are finally getting close.

First it is important to quote what you left out:

Brooks then said that moral courage isn’t necessarily standing up to your enemies or the people who disagree with you. Rather, it is standing up to the people with whom you agree on behalf of those with whom you disagree. “Can you do it? Are you up for it?” he asked the room.

Clinton was specifically doing that. To a crown of her supporters she expressed empathy for and outreach to Trump supporters. Obama’s remarks were similarly empathetic in explaining why his message of change fell short among people who have heard it all too many times.

It will be tbetter for the nation when folks stop with the divisive memes crafted by qwuoting fragments from the fuller content - playing gotcha’ for political gain - and actually engage with what people have been saying.

 

[Leo2014]

My argument is that a person claiming we do not know a person’s heart should not also be claiming Trump hates.

Your reciprocating back to the junior high school tactics that I described earlier. However, I am going to have to make the claim that you know when someone holds anger towards you? Many times that anger is a result of trespasses you committed. Hopefully, it is something that you seek forgiveness from the other persons once cooler heads have prevailed.

The point is; we know when anger is in the heart.

My recommendation is to attend a Prayer Breakfast that is hosted in your community. These gatherings are a “points of light” that will help breakdown the animosity that can collect in the heart. Each of us in the Faith Community needs to do a better job of being a reflection of the light.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My recommendation is to attend a Prayer Breakfast that is hosted in your community. These gatherings are a “ points of light ” that will help breakdown the animosity that can collect in the heart.

But nobody can joke about it, right? Nobody can say he’s anything but the paragon of Puritanical perfection, even jokingly.

 

[dvdjs]

But nobody can joke about it, right? Nobody can say he’s anything but the paragon of Puritanical perfection, even jokingly.

If Trump engaged in self-deprecating humor about short-comings in living the gospel, asking for prayers and God’s forgiveness, o one would bat an eye. Instead, he made a point of expressing his disagreement with the Gospel. The result, of course, is the same was what woulld be expected if he were to shoot someone on fifth avenue.

 

[Leo2014]

But nobody can joke about it, right? Nobody can say he’s anything but the paragon of Puritanical perfection, even jokingly.

I am certain that you don’t agree with your premise.

First, even if joking, there are things that I can say to you that you would find offensive. However, if one of your close friends were to make the same remark; you may chuckle? Remember that Trump has made derogatory remarks while referencing those who have departed (I know at other gatherings). If his supporters laugh along, that does not validate the remarks as something that should be deemed acceptable by polite culture.

You were in Church yesterday. You know that many times Father will start the Homily with a joke. However, never would he relay one with the punchline intended to be off-color, offensive to a particular group and most of all oppose the teachings that he is about the convey.

Understand that the material recited by a comedian at a comedy club will vary from the jokes you encounter at a gathering of the faithful; at least it should. But, even the comedian at the club knows there are limits to what he can say…

 

[Ridgerunner]

He says he finds it hard to live up to gospel teachings about loving people who hate you and try to destroy you and that’s offensive? That’s the human condition. He expresses that difficulty as self-deprecating humor and that’s blasphemy?

Liberals’ new-found puritanism would be laughable if it wasn’t so harmful.

 

[vz71]

My argument is that a person claiming we do not know a person’s heart should not also be claiming Trump hates.

The point is; we know when anger is in the heart.

I see.

But that does not answer for the mutually exclusive statements.
One is a claim that we do not know the heart of another and can therefore not judge hatred.
The other is a claim, from the same individual, that they can read another’s heart and can see hatred.

You may wish to review the pertinent posts.