The headline read "Watering while Black: anatomy of a pastor’s Alabama arrest. Well, sort of. A neighbor told police a suspicious person was in a neighbor's yard, but it was just one of the neighbors watering plants while the other one was away. The man arrested was a black pastor. And the "arrest" was more of a "questioned and detained in place" until he was released. Sure, problematic, but no one was charged and no one was booked. Now, of course, the pastor is suing the officers and the town. Because that's what good Christians do; they sue for every last dime they can get. Just like Jesus. Oh ... wait.
What's Good for the Gander ...
Hillary Clinton appeared on CNN to explain why the DOJ should certainly pursue Donald Trump over improper handling of government documents. "He's not president." True, but she never was and didn't face the DOJ over her email scandal. Hunter Biden was never president and gets a pass on his apparently illegal activities abroad. Will they be willing to apply the same standard to DOJ investigations of their actions?
Domestic Threat
Kamala Harris warned about "very dangerous" domestic threats in the U.S. such as those who think the 2020 election was stolen as well as the activist court. Mind you. The Supreme Court doing their job is a fundamental component in the Constitution -- at the core of this nation. Why isn't demeaning and attacking the Supreme Court just as much an assault on this nation as any protest at the Capitol building?
Welcome to Our Lobby
The president is giving more of your tax dollars to biomanufacturing to make our lives better with bioscience. He's not doing it by congressional means as the Constitution provides. He's doing it by
More What?
Eric Trump said, "There's no one who's done more for Christianity than Donald Trump. No one." I, of course, am confused. I'm thinking ... oh, I don't know ... like Jesus Christ for starters, followed immediately by John, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles. I'm thinking of the Church Fathers and the greats throughout church history. I'm thinking of all those who actually undergird and live it in public, those who have not brought shame to the name of Christ. I'm thinking ... the boy is confused.
Light in Darkness
Perhaps not my usual "News Weakly" fare, but I think you would be encouraged to read about the funeral (and life) of Eliza Fletcher, the young teacher kidnapped and murdered in Memphis.
Dream Big
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Lindsey Graham intends to propose a national abortion ban. Graham is from South Carolina which just failed to pass a "near-total abortion ban" along with other states who are blocked by vote or court from doing the same. I would argue that America is too far down the hole to recover by democratic vote. The American public will no longer tolerate protecting innocent human beings; that's too much to ask. And there is no point to a "Everyone must come to Christ in faith" law.
Believe the Science
In what appears to be an ongoing category of News Weakly, COVID cases, they tell me, are way down. So are monkeypox cases. So in the case of a pandemic, the best thing to do is to prevent the circumstances in which someone might contract the virus ... or don't. Let's look at it another way. They didn't want to stigmatize men who had sex with men, so they did nothing for prevention of monkeypox. Apparently they didn't mind at all stigmatizing work and social interaction for COVID. Let's look at it another way. Where's the science? Because I think you and I have been bamboozled here.
Crazy Politician
That Mike Pence ... what a guy. He suggested that safeguarding innocent children "is profoundly more important than any short-term politics." That's no way to get elected. It's true, but it isn't "politically correct" (in the most literal use of the phrase). Either we believe in the sanctity of human life or we do not. Politics is not the question.
With Friends Like This ...
Thanks to the Fed raising the interest rates, mortgage rates have exceeded 6% this week for the first time since the market busting turn of 2008. Or, to put it another way, it will be much harder for lower to middle-class people to buy a house. Another fine effort on the part of our government to lighten our money woes. Please ... stop helping. We can't afford your help.
The Father of Lies
The vote on the falsely named Respect for Marriage Act has been delayed in the Senate because they can't find 10 Republicans to obliterate the meaning of marriage like that. I'd argue that real "marriage equality legislation" would say "same-sex marriage is not equal to marriage," but no one is asking me.
News You Can Beelieve
In politics, a report is out that Biden has seen the outpouring of love for the Queen Elizabeth II and is considering dying to boost his approval ratings. On the immigration debacle, a Martha's Vineyard resident called police to report an hispanic in the area not operating a leaf blower. Meanwhile, the Obamas are taking it in stride, building new cages to hold arriving migrants.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
33 comments:
Killing time during a break in the action of preparing for my daughter's wedding later today. But I have to comment on the Eric Trump thing. I would wager any amount of money he was not referring to drawing people to Christ, as every knee-jerk response seems to suggest. I haven't the time to review the context in which he said it...context no one seems to care enough to provide...which suggests no better than a TDS response. But I would posit he refers to protecting religious freedoms, or something along those lines. Still a very wacky thing to say, and certainly so without really focusing on his meaning. But hey...he's a Trump, so let's pile on and assume the worst, right? Oh so Christian.
Another Fine Example:
If you check out the “church” the pastor leads you’d understand his racist and belligerent manner to the police. His “church” is apostate and is affiliated with the apostate Episcopal Church denomination.
What’s Good for the Gander…
She’s a Clinton and they seem to be invisible to the DOJ.
More What?
Eric Trump seems to be worshipping his father!
Believe the Science
I haven’t believed the “science” for decades. All you have to do is listen to the teachings of Freud and evolutionist “scientists” and you know you’re in trouble.
The Father of Lies
I have to agree with you!
Marshal, there is no context in which Trump (or any other politician in my lifetime) did "more for Christianity" than anyone. Period. (You're not assuming the worst of me, are you?)
What was Eric Trump's context? Until I know that, there's no way to judge. Now, even as I suggested it might have been, it can still be as much an exaggeration as many of his father's comments on things like crowd size. Yet again, one can do much for Christianity without bringing a soul to Christ.
I'm still confused. Is there some sense in your mind -- any sense at all, any context at all -- in which Donald Trump has done more for Christianity than anyone else? (That was Eric's claim.)
To be clear, I'd take issue with it if it was about John MacArthur or Jonathan Edwards or .... It's not some disdain for Trump.
Nobody here seems to have thought Eric Trump's quote was about number of people saved. But even if he was referring to Trump's protections of Christianity in America, it still comes nowhere close to many people in Church history. In fact, I would argue that even Nero did more for Christianity than Trump. Without his drumming up hatred for Christians, Christianity wouldn't have spread as far and fast as it did. Eric's words are simply egotistical and tone deaf, much like a lot of what his father liked to say.
for Marshal, I had to google this for I had not heard about this either.
https://baptistnews.com/article/no-one-has-done-more-for-christianity-than-donald-trump-his-son-declares/#.Yyc-VqTMIqs
This I agree with.... The narratives spun two days apart fit the close connection between Trump and the evangelical base of the modern Republican Party. Even though Trump never has been known as a practicing Christian or churchgoer, he has taken on hero status among evangelicals who believe he is a champion of their social causes.
and this...Replied one woman: “Yep. The thrice married, serial philander who mocked the disabled and bragged about sexual assault is the champion for Christianity. The guy who can’t quote a single verse, the guy who upside down shook a Bible that wasn’t his in front of a church he didn’t attend. Yep, that guy.”
Another person replied: “Well, there’s that Jesus guy but there is no way he measures up to what Trump has done. Right?”
If Eric said nothing more than what was stated in the post without him explaining in any way what he meant...for example, "Dad did more, and how 'bout dem Cowboys" and then moved on to talking about Pelosi being an old hag, then there is no reason to respond in any way beyond, "What the....?" Based on how his claim was described here and in the article, there's a clear presumption without benefit of doubt offered. I wanna know more. Again, I was outa town when I saw the post in the midst of my daughter's wedding festivities and wasn't up for doing any research it appears no one else felt any need to make. I've now just flown home, and boy are my arms...uh...nevermind. Been back just over an hour, but I'll be digging into this to see what's what.
Nero...Nero...that's that senator from New Hampshire back in the 1890's, right? I think it's a far safer presumption Eric was focusing on the US of A, and likely in regards to more recent history at that. I will say such disparaging remarks about a team member...particularly one closely related to the head of the team...hyping up the candidate is far from uncommon in politics and incredibly insignificant and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I'm far less concerned about it than I am the uncharitable responses to it by those who should know better.
Thanks, Leigh, for your comment. It sheds a bit of light on the comment, as until your contribution, I was not privy to the part where Eric says, "When it comes to religious liberty...", which adds some context. Your article refers to Pres. Trump's own comments, though the snippet provided within it is purposefully short so as to enable the author of the linked piece to use it to disparage Trump. It must always be kept in mind that Trump is no politician...not slick like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama...and speaks like a regular guy. Thus, what did he mean when he said no one has done more than him? I would suspect, like his boy, he was referring to his defense of religious liberty...not bringing anyone to Christ...not preaching the Word...but simply doing his job in defending the Constitution as regards religious liberty.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-champion-religious-freedom/
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/01/donald-trump-religious-liberty-mark-david-hall.html
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/07/at-prayer-breakfast-trump-touts-historic-action-to-protect-religious-liberty/
https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-issues-proclamation-hailing-christian-martyr-defense-religious-liberty/
For Evangelicals to express gratitude toward Trump for his efforts in the cause of religious liberty, as well as his efforts on behalf of the unborn, is no small thing. But does it prove "no one's done more"? Maybe not, but again, who cares if it's exactly true or not? What important is that this low character guy has actually done much which should not be ignored or taken for granted. Even more importantly, to immediately...in a most knee-jerk manner...pillory him or his son for their comments without considering context, without digging to find out just what was meant...is rather shameful. And those whose responses to the Trumps' claims expect better from a president than to be a man like Trump, so too should they adhere to expectations regarding how Christians respond to the words of others.
I wonder what the opposite of TDS is? Just wondering.
It's odd that Trump believes he did more than anyone for religious liberty when a piker like Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 that did more for religious freedom than anything since. On the other hand, "religious freedom" is assigned by the Bill of Rights, not by Scripture, and, as such, may or may not be of such a benefit as some might think.
I would suspect it's Trump Worship Syndrome, but it's mostly in the imaginings of the deranged. I've not met anyone who is full on TWS. Most supporters acknowledge his faults, his less than wonderful policies but aren't afraid to defend his good works as far better than anyone expected and fully deserving of recognition. Nothing more, nothing less. He's simply like the vast majority of us, including those who hate and/or disparage him.
"It's odd that Trump believes he did more than anyone for religious liberty when a piker like Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 that did more for religious freedom than anything since."
It's clear you feel a need to believe that. I think it's somewhat debatable, especially given SCOTUS generally ruled according to the principle of RFRA anyway. Yet, were it what you want to believe it is, all Trump felt compelled to do, as listed in my first link, should not have been necessary. You'd also have found his efforts reference what the Bill of Rights guarantees.
But again, I'm not going to quibble because Trump is proud of the work he did with regard to religious liberty and I'm certainly not going to call for his hanging because of it. It's an incredibly stupid response to an otherwise innocuous and insignificant boast. I'm sure we can find something more important to criticize if we try really hard.
I think it's somewhat ironic that you complain about "expectations regarding how Christians respond to the words of others" without considering how you are responding to the words of others. I haven't insulted Mr. Trump in this exchange. I haven't said a word about him. It was about Eric, but what it was really about was that anyone anywhere would conclude rationally and reaasonably that President Trump did more than anyone for Christianity. You even agree that he didn't. But you continue to assign to me feelings I don't have toward the man and complain that Christians should respond better to what other people say. Perhaps you ought to get some rest and let this be.
Got to love the double standard. I have a deranged hatred for Trump because I don't believe his good outweighs his bad, but you don't have an irrational love for the man because you believe his good outweighs his bad. You are unwilling to denounce Trump, but that doesn't mean you have TWS. I'm unwilling to promote Trump, so I must have TDS. Good example of grace there, Marshal.
I'd venture to say that the founders have done as much or more for religious liberty in the US than anyone else since. But I'll agree that Trump's comment was at best completely tone deaf. Of course there are folks who'll believe it.
Stan,
"I think it's somewhat ironic that you complain about "expectations regarding how Christians respond to the words of others" without considering how you are responding to the words of others."
I'm commenting on the rash and knee-jerk response to Eric Trump's comments without the slightest wondering of just what he meant. I saw nothing in your link which sought to determine his meaning, either. I think that's a fair response given the tiny snippet which, even in it's tiny entirety, was not properly quoted, by you or anyone in that article. You continue with this by again saying "...it was really about was that anyone anywhere would conclude rationally and reaasonably that President Trump did more than anyone for Christianity." No. That wasn't what was said.
"You even agree that he didn't."
No. At best, I suggested it's a debatable point, though not one about which I'd spend much effort to debate one way or the other. Did he do nothing for the cause of religious liberty? I think I provided evidence he did. For me, that's enough. It's not as if that's all he's done for America in his four years in office.
"But you continue to assign to me feelings I don't have toward the man and complain that Christians should respond better to what other people say."
Conclusions drawn from your words...the manner in which you've expressed yourself. Sue me.
"Perhaps you ought to get some rest and let this be."
Not likely. Too much harm has come to the nation due to attitudes toward the man such as yours. I'll remind all whose choice on Election Day of Nov 2020 resulted in this harm of how bad that choice is every time the slightest reference to it arises. I don't want to see it happen again.
David,
"I have a deranged hatred for Trump because I don't believe his good outweighs his bad..."
It might help if you would at least once point to anything he did that represents the good. You'd rather focus on the meaningless and from that you've allowed far worse than anything he's ever done while president. So yeah, TDS for sure.
"but you don't have an irrational love for the man because you believe his good outweighs his bad."
First, my regard for the man is mostly restricted to his work as president. While I've had too many friends that are worse than him character-wise, I'm not likely to get worked up over that with which I have no first-hand knowledge, and no one who whines about it has either.
Secondly, with that being said, his good as president does outweigh the bad, unless like Craig, you choose to put greater emphasis on one policy or another in order to make your contrary case.
"You are unwilling to denounce Trump, but that doesn't mean you have TWS."
I've denounced his character by refusing to back him during the primaries prior to the 2016 election. I worried his character flaws would result in dire consequences after holding my nose to prevent the far worse Hillary Clinton a win. After four successful years of rather stellar work as president, I'd be as much a fool as you guys to denounce his presidency. It makes no sense for any objective observer concerned for the welfare of our nation to do so. One needn't have been a Prophet of God to know that things would go south with Biden winning. It has fare beyond my expectations...far beyond compared to my expectations for Trump being really good at the job.
"I'm unwilling to promote Trump, so I must have TDS."
You don't have to love the guy. You don't even have to like the guy. You most certainly do need to love your country enough to acknowledge his ability as president...more than you dislike for the man. The sanctimony and self-satisfaction you and Pops gets from refusing to support the better man in 2020 is not what you think it is.
Craig,
"I'd venture to say that the founders have done as much or more for religious liberty in the US than anyone else since."
I'd venture to say that Eric Trump...nor his old man, for that matter...are making comparisons to the founders, or anyone else beyond the last forty years or so. It would have been nice to have heard someone ask either of them to elaborate rather than to presume.
"But I'll agree that Trump's comment was at best completely tone deaf."
Wow. Again demeaning non-politicians for not speaking like politicians. And someone like these two? Why would anyone expect it to be different now, if they have never demonstrated the knack for impressing us with their oratory?
" Of course there are folks who'll believe it."
Perhaps, but not that many. More likely, it'll be forgotten quickly except by those keeping score of such insignificant stuff...like WaPo, for instance.
Marshal, I'm a person that prefers to get along with folks, so I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I didn't vote the way you deemed necessary -- the only moral way. I'm sorry that I cannot, in good conscience, act in a way that violates my beliefs (Rom 14:23) and, obviously, sorry that I can't conform what I believe to what you dictate. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe; I'm sorry. I'm sorry that my inability to conform to your point of view is seen as a moral failure and an assault on your pocketbook and your comfort (personally and as a nation -- not trying to imply it's just all about you). I'm also sorry that your worldview requires fellow believers to conform to your perspective in order for you to treat them with respect and Christian charity. Oh, I get it; I'm just sorry that it is so. But I suppose you will continue to throw this back at all of us who failed to follow your lead and vote your way and operated on a different basis. And I'm very sorry you can't let it go (Matt 6:15).
"unless like Craig, you choose to put greater emphasis on one policy or another in order to make your contrary case."
Of course I put greater weight on certain polices as opposed to others. His biggest success (SCOTUS justices) has been mixed at best. His IMO biggest failure (more out of control deficit spending) was pretty massive given his promises on the campaign trail. To ignore something that he promised to fix seems like a pretty big negative to me. Yet, strangely enough you seem to think it's perfectly reasonable for you to put greater emphasis on the things you think build your case, while minimizing, dismissing, or offering excuses for those things that harm your case.
"I'd venture to say that Eric Trump...nor his old man, for that matter...are making comparisons to the founders, or anyone else beyond the last forty years or so. It would have been nice to have heard someone ask either of them to elaborate rather than to presume."
I'd venture to say that we live in a world where perception is reality. In this case, regardless of nuance or context, mini Trump make an incredibly stupid statement. How about just acknowledging the fact that he misspoke and looks like an idiot. Or, why not acknowledge the fact that you're simply ascribing the best possible meaning to his words without any real basis to.
"Wow. Again demeaning non-politicians for not speaking like politicians."
Trump and his children are all public figures, they speak on politics as well as other topics in public. They've all been TV personalities, social media gadflies, and they all have access to extensive PR expertise. But let's be serious, they are all involved in politics directly, even if it's just as political operatives. What an absurd excuse.
"And someone like these two?"
Ahhhhhhhh, the "Trumps are all boorish and crass, we must simply accept these traits and ignore them. It's too much to expect them to be held to the same standards of others." canard.
"Why would anyone expect it to be different now, if they have never demonstrated the knack for impressing us with their oratory?"
I don't know. Growth, maturity, PR handlers, self awareness, I'm sure there are other options.
What's interesting is that somehow Trump, who has shown literally no interest in Christianity, exhibits virtually zero characteristics of a Christian, didn't even regularly attend church while in the White House, has somehow become this hero to Christians. It's not like his moral filings aren't at least equal to Kennedy or Clinton.
Stan,
I totally agree with your last comment. Although I can't help but note that Trump could have engaged in behaviors that would have potentially allowed people like to to vote for him in '20. The notion that Trump's own actions have no bearing on his loss, and that it's all the fault of people who felt as you did, seems patently absurd to me.
I can't fathom living at your level of anger all the time. It was 2 years ago. There's no amount of berating that can change that I didn't agree with your reasoning for my electoral choice. You disagree with my reasons, and that's fine. I don't hold that against you. You can't seem to do the same. Who we vote for is not a "thou shalt". So at least the charity we give you would be appreciated. Your sustained anger isn't a very good representation for Christianity.
I'm sorry that you can't make a coherent argument for just how your vote was in harmony with the will of God given the incredible harm Trump's loss and Biden's win imposed upon the nation. You can take that "conform" nonsense and ram it where the sun won't shine. It's not about that. It's a legit concern that your sanctimonious attitude is more a matter of self-stroking than any true concern for how one who claims to be a child of God should act when the consequences are so serious and harmful as they have been since that election.
What's more, you continue to demonstrate that you do indeed hold some animosity toward Trump about that which has no relation to why we vote, why it matters how we vote and how your choice makes you complicit in the harm his loss and Biden's win has caused your fellow Americans.
Further, you seem to dismiss how obvious it was that harm would follow given Trump's success in improving our situation since his predecessor was termed out, and how incompetent his opponent had proven himself to be after 47 years in politics.
In other words, there was no possibility that harm would not follow a Biden win...the only question being just how much...and you still want to pretend that your conscience is clean? That's just amazing to me. You'll reject the efforts of an adulterous fireman in favor of a guy with a can of gasoline and think you're right with God. Absolutely amazing. Let 'em all burn. I'm still trying to see where Scripture teaches anything like that.
You certainly haven't let go of Trump's sins, have you?
Alright, Marshal, fine. Make this an argument. I was serious about being sorry; you are not. Nor are you conforming to the basic concept of Christian charity, let alone "friendly." I'll have to filter more from now on. I have no ill will toward Trump. (I've even defended him on occasion.) But Dan lumps me together with Trump lovers and you lump me together with Trump haters and this is a no-win. I'll have to put an end to this now.
Theoretical reasonable arguments.
The US has strayed far from it's founding with regards to the place of Christianity in our country. God has a track record of punishing countries that stray from His paths. Therefore God allowed the US to endure the damage caused by Biden as a corrective to turn us away from worshiping government and toward worshiping Him.
God created everything that exists. He created it for His glory. Nothing that happens does so without His allowing it. We certainly don't understand His reasons, but we can acknowledge His sovereignty.
Entropy. Things move from order to chaos.
I'm not suggesting that any of these is right, just reasonable.
Very well said Craig!
See, Craig, I think I missed something in all this. I was not aware that a primary component of God's definition of "good" was "a comfortable life for all Americans."
Stan,
I must have missed that as well. As per Medved's book, I think that there are some things that are reasonably convincing to support the notion that God intervened in the history of the US. I think it's reasonable to say that God has used the US in order to accomplish things at various points in history. However, that doesn't mean that the US isn't subject to the same sorts of decline that brought down previous empires, or that our comfort or prosperity are guaranteed.
It's hard, I think, to have a healthy view of God's sovereignty. I think that often we look at God's sovereignty the same way a child looks at what's fair. We think that whatever benefits us is God's sovereign will. I'm not so sure.
I actually think that there's a good argument to be made that our "comfortable life" might be more of a detriment to our relationship with God than a benefit. I'd argue that much of current progressive christianity is a result of people having run out of real problems to solve, and needing to invent or exaggerate problems to give themselves value.
Leigh,
Thanks.
I agree, Craig. Paul told Timothy that God was "the only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15), which puts Him outside of our experience and, thus, our complete understanding. Many Christians operate on a "God is Sovereign but" concept where we, apparently, have the ability to interfere with His sovereignty.
And I have held for a long time that it's harder to be a genuine Christian in a "comfortable society" than it is in an oppressive one because there is no pressure to be genuine. Scripture seems to bear that out, too, with all the "you will suffer" stuff.
Despite all you both have said, there's no justification for bringing about suffering. I prefer comfort to suffering. Most do. That in itself is not wrong or sinful. I agree that comfort can lead to complacency and certainly with regard to abiding in the Lord. But that's not a guarantee. The suffering we now experience did not have to happen. There was no particular need for it insofar as the Christian character of the nation. The suffering we now experience was invited by a rank disregard for reality. It wasn't necessarily God's will that it be so and I doubt anyone can argue otherwise. The notion that supporting Trump's re-election displeases God is absurd and without basis unless one has an absurd notion of what voting is all about. Until one can find me a true mind reader...one who can accurately determine the true and ultimate intentions of a politician...I will avoid pretending I know any of them is evil incarnate and look only to their track records and policy proposals to determine what is best for my fellow Americans. I do not serve my fellow man by allowing buffoons to win elections. They will do so only despite my efforts.
"It wasn't necessarily God's will that it be so"
When my youngest son was in high school he asked me, "How can I know the will of God for my life?" I told him, "Well, part of it is easy ... whatever has already happened. The future isn't quite so easy ..." Silly in your view, I know, but that's because the God I find in the pages of Scripture is indeed Sovereign. He always accomplishes His will, never fails. That's what I see, so that's the God I believe in and count on even in this sin-sick world. As I said to Craig, I know there are many who nod to His Sovereignty and then say things like "It wasn't necessarily God's will that it be so." You and I will continue to disagree on that point.
Just a point for Marshall. It was God's will to ALLOW Biden to be elected, just as it is God's will to allow us to make wrong decisions.
I'm curious, Marshal, what's your goal here? For 2 years now you've been haranguing us about this. We clearly disagree about our reasons for how we voted. We think you're wrong, but that's ok. You think we're wrong, but we're evil sadists. We're obviously not going to come to some sudden revelation that you were right all this time, especially when you haven't said anything new in all this time. You voted your conscience and we voted ours. Grace is apparently not sufficient for you. You seem to be willing to hold onto your anger. But what do you hope to have happen? We're coming at this situation from apparently different foundational positions, and unless we can agree on those foundations, we'll never come to a place of toleration.
Post a Comment