What does politics have to do with religion

[QContinuum]

it is the holy spirit who brings people to God, not any man.

Be real. Does scandal mean nothing to you?

By your reductionist logic, the witness of the saints is worthless, because God just draws people with his spirit anyway, with no help from man.

Are you the Church Militant or not?

 

[upant]

Be real. Does scandal mean nothing to you?

not in the sense you are using it. how many people know who defends trump and who doesn’t? how many people care about politics other than when it is time to vote.

By your reductionist logic, the witness of the saints is worthless, because God just draws people with his spirit anyway, with no help from man.

all actions by man are worthless. do you think if one person does something wrong God won’t put someone else in their life that will lead them to Him?

i don’t know about you but i don’t discuss politics with people i want to bring into the church.

 

[QContinuum]

all actions by man are worthless. do you think if one person does something wrong God won’t put someone else in their life that will lead them to Him?

What I think is, is that you continually try to evade the point: evangelical Christians chose politics over their witness with their very public endorsement of Trump.

Just as liberal Christians earned contempt by supporting HRC.

i don’t know about you but i don’t discuss politics with people i want to bring into the church

You, personally, don’t. However, if you were an evangelical Christian, you may well experience an issue of credibility because of your affiliation with the larger group.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

For many people it is and for many it isn’t. The Republican Party pays better lip service to Christian values then the Democrats. Personally, I don’t trust either party as both are too corrupt and I also believe that Bush, Obama and Trump are all no good. However, the people that vote republican are another matter because they believe in those fore-mentioned values and as a result vote for them in great numbers. These people, like my parents, who are by no means wealthy and have no ‘privilege’ to check, are just ordinary hard working people who love their families but have traditional ideas. That doesn’t make them Hitler.

 

[upant]

What I think is, is that you continually try to evade the point: evangelical Christians chose politics over their witness with their very public endorsement of Trump.

Just as liberal Christians earned contempt by supporting HRC.

how many people can name the evangelicals you are talking about?

i don’t think the politics of a preacher is important. it is that simple.

they don’t really have an option. they either support the anti-religious left or anyone who has a chance to beat them. any other vote is a waste.

 

[QContinuum]

how many people can name the evangelicals you are talking about?

Nonsensical question. The majority of Evangelicals went for Trump, not just individual personalities here and there. The majority is what the movement will be judged by. Ergo, the credibility of the group, as a whole, is affected.

i don’t think the politics of a preacher is important. it is that simple.

Irrelevant. Individual pastors and personalities are not the issue. The whole of the group is.
Just as Catholics as a group have frequently had their moral authority questioned and ridiculed because of the global reach of the sexual scandals. So evangelicals may expect blow back from the scandal of supporting Trump.

they don’t really have an option. they either support the anti-religious left or anyone who has a chance to beat them. any other vote is a waste

The only vote that is wasted is one that goes against one’s conscience.

 

[ATraveller]

Who they voted for this time was someone who promised to give them back some political power. They took that deal.

Political power is vague. They voted because they wanted their colleges to remain Christian, not lose their businesses over cakes and flowers, and etc.

Ergo, the credibility of the group, as a whole, is affected.

I initially thought it would. Now, I believe it won’t be as severe. Simply because Evangelicals don’t evangelise with politics.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Then you don’t read the posts on these message boards very often.

His commentary and certain behaviors have been called out by people who still support the positions he takes. It literally happens all the time around here. Few if any defend any bad behavior.

And the same argument could be made about Hillary Clinton and her character. Her character alone should disqualify her, according to many who dislike Trump.

However, in the end, with two candidates who have a chance at winning, it is not overlooking poor character as much as it is accepting the inevitable and hoping to work with it.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

You are comparing things that bug you (they are may or may not be wrong, but they are in no way intrinsically evil) to things that are evil by their very nature (abortion).

Can you honestly not see the difference?

 

[upant]

Nonsensical question. The majority of Evangelicals went for Trump, not just individual personalities here and there. The majority is what the movement will be judged by. Ergo, the credibility of the group, as a whole, is affected.

you still don’t get it. evangelicals had no real choice

a non-vote was a vote for hillary

let them judge. if they are looking for God in politics, the Holy Spirit will be the only guide they listen to.

Irrelevant. Individual pastors and personalities are not the issue. The whole of the group is.
Just as Catholics as a group have frequently had their moral authority questioned and ridiculed because of the global reach of the sexual scandals.

you haven’t been paying attention. the entire religious community is ostracized by subjective moral liberals now. stop hanging your hat on their trump hate. it is just one of many issues, they have choices.

So evangelicals may expect blow back from the scandal of supporting Trump.

it is just more of the same. give up the hate

The only vote that is wasted is one that goes against one’s conscience.

either hillary or trump was going to win. would you have been ok with a hillary presidency? a vote to expand abortion sits ok on the conscience? if you didn’t vote trump it was a vote to expand abortion.

 

[QContinuum]

you still don’t get it. evangelicals had no real choice

a non-vote was a vote for hillary

I completely comprehend that you’ve bought into the two-party system. Like so many millions who bemoan their lack of good choices, but never opt for any real freedom of conscience, but perpetuate the system by always pulling the lever for Option A or B.

A non-vote is just that. It didn’t happen.

I voted. Third party.

let them judge. if they are looking for God in politics, the Holy Spirit will be the only guide they listen to.

That would be ideal.

you haven’t been paying attention. the entire religious community is ostracized by subjective moral liberals now. stop hanging your hat on their trump hate. it is just one of many issues, they have choices.

There are more religious people than there are nones, by at least twice as many. Rather than putting the shoulder to the plow, it’s easier to cede the field. We’re still called to preservere, are we not?

Christianity is far from dead, in fact many liberals are practicing Christians.

I’m old enough to know better than to believe the tripe that’s spread in every dark corner of the internet that says Americans are all either godless liberals or heartless, conservative believers. That division has been fomented by extremist media pundits from “left” and “right.” I consider these types to be traitors to this country.

So you’ll understand me when I tell you that when it comes to assessing a political candidate, I ignore the polemical idiots that dominate the internet. I instead take my cue from my own observations, knowledge of moral precepts, and research from verifiable sources.

As opposed to adopting knee-jerk trite slogans and crowd-sourced opinions from social media.

it is just more of the same. give up the hate

Like this. The “haters” is one of the many meaningless terms thrown around. This is not a Taylor Swift Twitter account. Please use grown up terminology, because the “hate” thing is adolescent, and we’re both adults (I pressume?).

Oh, to answer your question about HRC: I’ll repeat myself, I’m relieved we avoided her presidency. She wanted war with Russia.

Now, try to understand this perspective: going into the voting booth in 2016, I looked at HRC as a sociopath and DT as a narcissistic crime boss. I saw in them the equal capacity for committing grevious harm for our country. HRC, by pitting the US against Russia, and piling up fraud and criminal acts and throwing pieces of our country to the highest bidder. DT, by invigorating and enabling the rise of white nationalists, using his power to railroad his opponents, and undermining the rule of law, itself.

I couldn’t vote for either one or I’d have puked. Quite seriously.

 

[ATraveller]

There are more religious people than there are nones, by at least twice as many

Nominalism isn’t real Christianity though. Self-identification doesn’t make one a Christian. I could call myself a Hindu but I’m not.

 

[QContinuum]

Nominalism isn’t real Christianity though. Self-identification doesn’t make one a Christian. I could call myself a Hindu but I’m not.

That’s a deflection, AF. Besides the fact that you can’t know the state of belief in every identified Christian, the person who is “nominally” Christian is so because of some connection to the faith, whether it was being baptized, raised in the faith, or just hearing Bible stories from the knee of a grandparent. People do not generally self-identify with religions to which they have zero knowledge or experience thereof.

Culturally and socially, those who identify as Christians still far outnumber the nones.

The question is will the trend towards secularism be changed by DT’s presidency?

I doubt it. I think it will even accelerate the decline. Again, because our reputation as believers is tarnished by the election of Trump.

 

[ATraveller]

That’s a deflection,

It’s not. That’s why social scientists use the imperfect method of looking into attendance frequency. And that measure would show about 30% attend weekly. Of course, there are those who have irregular work patterns or are ill but they aren’t statistically significant enough. Also, we know from studies many Evangelicals don’t hold ‘evangelical theology’. Studies that go more in-depth are time consuming and expensive.

People do not generally self-identify with religions to which they have zero knowledge or experience of.

I suppose ‘There’s a higher power’ isn’t zero knowledge. That’s not Christian because a Hindu or Sikh would profess the same thing.

Culturally and socially, those who identify as Christians still far outnumber the nones.

Yes but useless for good analysis.

The question is will the trend towards secularism be changed by DT’s presidency?

The nominals are leaving. They have been doing that for the last 2 decades. He might catalyze an ongoing trend but they were going to leave with or without Trump. Among the practising, Trump may have an effect. But frankly, I think it’s overblown because most Christians don’t evangelize with politics.

 

[upant]

I voted. Third party.

and that helped how?

Christianity is far from dead, in fact many liberals are practicing Christians.

how do they justify their conscience?

As opposed to adopting knee-jerk trite slogans and crowd-sourced opinions from social media.

walk around a few catholic campuses and see how they aren’t so catholic anymore. listen to your next generation.

the “hate” thing is adolescent,

adolescent or not it is out there. have you seen the way his haters protest? wearing p hats and dressed as a … yeah real adults out there

I couldn’t vote for either one or I’d have puked. Quite seriously.

a vote for a third party person or hillary was a vote for expanded abortion. puke all you want but at least you are alive. how many more would be dead if the government starts paying for abortion.

 

[QContinuum]

and that helped how?

By increasing the percentage of the population who voted Libertarian, serves to challenge the duopoly the the Ds and Rs have. Meeting a certain threshold qualifies the party for more guaranteed airtime, participation in debates, and increased awareness of the party, itself.

how do they justify their conscience?

Why would you ask me that? I’m not their confessor, nor their spokesman.

walk around a few catholic campuses and see how they aren’t so catholic anymore. listen to your next generation.

Ok, so we’re throwing in the towel? Is that what you’re saying here?

adolescent or not it is out there. have you seen the way his haters protest? wearing p hats and dressed as a … yeah real adults out there

Yes, they are crass. I agree. I’m suggesting we not stoop to that. If for no other reason, to be the sole voice of sanity in the din.

a vote for a third party person or hillary was a vote for expanded abortion. puke all you want but at least you are alive. how many more would be dead if the government starts paying for abortion

No. A vote for a third party was exactly that, nothing less, and nothing more. Otherwise, one could claim that a vote against HRC was a vote for racism, as I’ve been accused of by several Dems. In fact, in my state, the majority of folks who voted third party in this last election were actually mostly disaffected Sanders voters.

 

[QContinuum]

I suppose ‘There’s a higher power’ isn’t zero knowledge. That’s not Christian because a Hindu or Sikh would profess the same thing.

The “higher power” is more descriptive of nones, than Christians. That is in fact why many social
scientists are careful to point out that a rise in “nones” doesn’t equal a corresponding rise in atheism/ agnosticism. These are rather people who are theists or deists in just such a vague way as you’ve descibed. They are still distinct from cultural/ nominal Christians though, who still maintain some connection to the faith that is more developed than “higher spiritual power.”

 

[upant]

Ok, so we’re throwing in the towel? Is that what you’re saying here?

some of the leaders of these institutions did

In fact, in my state, the majority of folks who voted third party in this last election were actually mostly disaffected Sanders voters.

this i can understand

 

[ATraveller]

That part of my reply was a on-the-spot example. What I was trying to get at is nominal Christians only hold a vague idea of Christianity rather than knowing what true Christianity is. And some nominal Christians do hold deist views but hold to the Christian label for whatever reason.
There are plenty of people who call themselves Christian though never baptised, never attended church, don’t hold any proper basics of the faith nor live like a Christian.
Again, nominal Christianity versus true Christianity yield very different sociological results. In fact, nominal Christians are nearly indistinguishable from the nones in many studies on a variety of topics. That’s why such a distinction must be made. The invisible and visible church isn’t confined only to theology, it appears in the social sciences too.

 

[Jump4Joy]

No, I cannot. I know abortion is considered evil by the Catholic Church. I notice a belief among conservatives is that white men are now the most discriminated group. I don’t seem the see the world that way honestly. I understand how conservative party upholds the church’s best interest but I don’t follow how conservatives view society