Please stop misquoting me, it's annoying. I'm not saying all or most Christians do this. I'm saying their relative prevalence is a sign of a larger trend in which right wing Christians tend to view politicians they support as also having some religious significance or divine mandate.

Well you did post that you thought Trump represented the "face of American Christianity" so I agree with swimmerbabe's post.

Quote:

---

Great, understood. What next?

The problem is that the small minority of people who post things like that on Facebook are the type who post it every five minutes. Being quietly Christian is certainly a more diplomatic approach and the best way (imo) to be rather than shouting it on facebook every time I log on. So, people like Rocag think all Christians are like "those people" instead of noticing his many Christian friends who don't post their politics or theology on social media.

So what do you suggest we do with this knowledge?

---

It's a good question. I think the simple answer is that we look little like the Jesus we claim to devote our lives to. I don't blame Rocag in the least. A great majority of us (and I point the finger at myself) don't live any differently...we just have meetings on Sunday.

Ill try and circle back and put more meat later.

And I maintain that the way in which so many prominent Christian leaders have defended and embraced him in very religious terms has blurred the line so that he is being presented to and by his base as a religious leader as well as political. Given that, what living American Christian figure is more prominent or influential than he is?

I do find it very interesting to see the lack of objection from some on the issue of scribbling one's name on the cover of the Bible, then compare it to many of those same people's often vitriolic response over athletes not standing during a song or if someone desecrates an American flag.

The problem lies with the fact that the people you call "prominent Christian leaders" are people that the Christians I know and belong to call charlatans and heretics. They are divisive.

I don't know how to better say that those guys arent leaders in the Christianity I know and belong to. I wouldn't listen to or follow a single thing they said.

PacifistAg said:

---

I do find it very interesting to see the lack of objection from some on the issue of scribbling one's name on the cover of the Bible, then compare it to many of those same people's often vitriolic response over athletes not standing during a song or if someone desecrates an American flag.

---

I personally do not like any of the actions you mentioned. I do think the amount of outrage is gauged upon one's political persuasion. Politics and religion do not mix. And maybe it is just me but I think it is very disingenuous to broadly paint anything. Saying Trump is the "face of American Christianity" is simply not true for the majority of American Christians. And it saddens me as a Christian.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

The problem lies with the fact that the people you call "prominent Christian leaders" are people that the Christians I know and belong to call charlatans and heretics. They are divisive.

I don't know how to better say that those guys arent leaders in the Christianity I know and belong to. I wouldn't listen to or follow a single thing they said.

---

Agree.

I have no intention of getting into a debate who is and who isn't a "true Christian" because that really isn't any of my concern. Right or wrong, they still wield a great degree of influence. What I'm getting at is the idea that the long term consequence of marrying American evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party is that the influence has gone both ways. I saw it first hand while I was still a Christian in the Southern Baptist churches I attended.

I accept that we see things differently, but like I said earlier what I am talking about is the point of view from the outside looking in.

Rocag said:

---

I have no intention of getting into a debate who is and who isn't a "true Christian" because that really isn't any of my concern. Right or wrong, they still wield a great degree of influence. What I'm getting at is the idea that the long term consequence of marrying American evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party is that the influence has gone both ways. I saw it first hand while I was still a Christian in the Southern Baptist churches I attended.

I accept that we see things differently, but like I said earlier what I am talking about is the point of view from the outside looking in.

---

Just curious but if I am a Christian who is against abortion, gay marriage, welfare without work, and a capitalist(all of which I think are Biblical) who should I vote for? Granted, as pacifist stated earlier, a lot of it is political to get votes, but where do I fit in the dem party?

Quote:

---

who should I vote for?

---

Don't. It only encourages them.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

who should I vote for?

---

Don't. It only encourages them.

---

I hear you but I feel it is my Christian duty to vote for people who at least are not pro abortion,

By all means vote Republican or however else you want. The argument isn't that Christians have been unsuccessful at converting Christian beliefs into Republican beliefs but that in the meantime some Republican beliefs have been adopted as Christian beliefs. Just about any political belief you can think of has been presented as Biblical at one time even when it makes very little sense. For instance capitalism may be compatible with Christianity but I don't think you can make an argument that it is required, a lot of early Christian socialist communities would have disagreed with that idea. Heck, not even democracy itself is really the government type the Bible advocates.

Separation of church and state protects the church as much as it does the state. Secularism is really the best for all sides.

I think appealing to capitalism through the Bible demonstrates the point that Republicans are shaping Christianity as well as the reverse. No honest reading can say the Bible has any strong opinion on an economic model. To the extent it says anything it hardly seems to favor notions of greed, focus on personal property, selection, and concentration of wealth capitalism brings.

I'm a capitalist because in spite of these things it's a practical and productive economic model. And that's a perfectly good reason for you too. But because Jesus says so...it's absurd really

I don't think this is entirely true.

I think you're right that the Bible doesn't really favor capitalism vs socialism or comments directly on a number of modern issues that have arisen from modern industry, a market economy, and the nation-state, but Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus certainly create an image of an economic ideal centered on mutual cooperation, liberal lending, and debt forgiveness with a number of laws that require the community to provide a basic level of support to those in need particularly orphans, widows, the sick, the elderly, and aliens. Biblical prophets routinely criticize the people for not following these laws, and Jesus regularly appeals to this agrarian village ideal from the Torah when preaching in Galilee and the surrounding area. The Gospel writers make heavy use of these speeched and narratives during a time of economic and political crisis. I think we make a mistake by viewing these things as "morality" rather than "economic strategy" that fit the historical and geographic context. But certainly reading "capitalism" or "socialism" into the text is inappropriate.

The Bible gives conflicting views over the level of desired political and economic centralization, but I think the overarching narrative is critical of centralized political power and opposed to foreign political influence.

craigernaught said:

---

I don't think this is entirely true.

I think you're right that the Bible doesn't really favor capitalism vs socialism or comments directly on a number of modern issues that have arisen from modern industry, a market economy, and the nation-state, but Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus certainly create an image of an economic ideal centered on mutual cooperation, liberal lending, and debt forgiveness with a number of laws that require the community to provide a basic level of support to those in need particularly orphans, widows, the sick, the elderly, and aliens. Biblical prophets routinely criticize the people for not following these laws, and Jesus regularly appeals to this agrarian village ideal from the Torah when preaching in Galilee and the surrounding area. The Gospel writers make heavy use of these speeched and narratives during a time of economic and political crisis. I think we make a mistake by viewing these things as "morality" rather than "economic strategy" that fit the historical and geographic context. But certainly reading "capitalism" or "socialism" into the text is inappropriate.

The Bible gives conflicting views over the level of desired political and economic centralization, but I think the overarching narrative is critical of centralized political power and opposed to foreign political influence.

---

I agree with that. But Scripture is also pretty clear about not giving stuff to people who can work and do not. I do not know anybody who is adverse to helping out widows, orphans, the disabled, or the working poor.

Quote:

---

And I maintain that the way in which so many prominent Christian leaders have defended and embraced him in very religious terms has blurred the line so that he is being presented to and by his base as a religious leader as well as political. Given that, what living American Christian figure is more prominent or influential than he is?

---

To add more to what I posted earlier, I'd posit that if your Christian friends differed significantly in message and deed to these leaders you reference, you'd probably wouldn't affiliate them together and question whether these people were leaders.

This seems to jive with your comment later about 'I saw it first hand while I was still a Christian in the Southern Baptist churches I attended".

I really wish some of the non believers could visit the church I attend. I think they at least might understand that we are not like what they seem to think we are.

I know lots of people who don't think there should be any legal obligation to do so, despite Biblical descriptions of civil laws including it.

And diehard, I think you're missing my point. I fully accept not all Christians believe in that way and have said so from the beginning.

Quote:

---

And diehard, I think you're missing my point. I fully accept not all Christians believe in that way and have said so from the beginning.

---

I think I understand your point. However, you're still maintaining that these people represent Christianity. that connection is made somehow. I think it's because there aren't enough voices for you to see that they don't.

gig em 02 said:

---

Anyone else find it strange that's it's only the atheist trolls seeing these things all over social media?

I haven't seen any of these things anywhere. This sounds like another "supply not fulfilling the demand" situation.

---

How did atheists get dragged into this thread??? I have no opinion on the 'rightness' of Trump signing a bible and apparently no other atheist in this forum does either. This is yalls nonsense - leave us out.

I think what bothered me was the thought that Trump or any pol was the face of American Christianity. That is not at all my experience.

Quote:

---

I really wish some of the non believers could visit the church I attend. I think they at least might understand that we are not like what they seem to think we are.

---

I'll be honest with you: if they can't tell by our postings, then we are just hypocrites anyway. I say that including me.

I also think we need to be smart. If we want to "own the libs", we need to understand that makes others think we side the opposition. We need to realize that the "lesser of 2 evils" isn't a thing. We don't need to cast our allegiance to anything but Christ and act likewise.

In the end, we need to take ownership of the situation. They are only responding to how we are telling them to be.

And I don't think you get to decide what Christianity is or who represents it. My description might not fit your particular version of it but there is so much variation between different brands of Christianity that you can hardly say your version is the only one. For instance, from my point of view Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch others all fit under the umbrella of Christianity even though you might argue some of them shouldn't.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I really wish some of the non believers could visit the church I attend. I think they at least might understand that we are not like what they seem to think we are.

---

I'll be honest with you: if they can't tell by our postings, then we are just hypocrites anyway. I say that including me.

I also think we need to be smart. If we want to "own the libs", we need to understand that makes others think we side the opposition. We need to realize that the "lesser of 2 evils" isn't a thing. We don't need to cast our allegiance to anything but Christ and act likewise.

In the end, we need to take ownership of the situation. They are only responding to how we are telling them to be.

---

I somewhat agree but I can not remember any of your posts or the vast majority of posters on here who echo this idea of Trump being the face of Christianity.

And I do not want to "own the libs". I just want to state what I believe and go from there.

Rocag said:

---

And I don't think you get to decide what Christianity is or who represents it. My description might not fit your particular version of it but there is so much variation between different brands of Christianity that you can hardly say your version is the only one. For instance, from my point of view Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch others all fit under the umbrella of Christianity even though you might argue some of them shouldn't.

---

And you do not get to decide that either. And when you stated Trump represented the face of American Christianity imho you did.

But I certainly do get to decide my own point of view. Never once have i demanded any of you agree with it and have always described it as the view from the outside looking in. And even then it was a limited description to American Christianity, a distinction I have been clarifying since then as referring to the brand of Christianity that has eschewed the separation of church and state and raised nationalism as a spiritual virtue.

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

And I don't think you get to decide what Christianity is or who represents it. My description might not fit your particular version of it but there is so much variation between different brands of Christianity that you can hardly say your version is the only one. For instance, from my point of view Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch others all fit under the umbrella of Christianity even though you might argue some of them shouldn't.

---

And you do not get to decide that either. And when you stated Trump represented the face of American Christianity imho you did.

---

I think some of the disconnect may be in how we are defining "American Christianity". Does that term mean "Christianity in America"? If so, then I would absolutely agree with you. I don't think Trump represents Christianity in America. I do not believe anyone who boasts of never asking forgiveness represents Christianity anywhere. But if we mean "Americanized Christianity", then I would like agree with Rocag on that. And by "Americanized Christianity", I do not conflate that with actual Christianity, but it's more of a gross distortion created by taking concepts such as greed, objectification, nationalism, etc, then sprinkling it with Christian terminology and verses ripped from all context.

PacifistAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

And I don't think you get to decide what Christianity is or who represents it. My description might not fit your particular version of it but there is so much variation between different brands of Christianity that you can hardly say your version is the only one. For instance, from my point of view Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch others all fit under the umbrella of Christianity even though you might argue some of them shouldn't.

---

And you do not get to decide that either. And when you stated Trump represented the face of American Christianity imho you did.

---

I think some of the disconnect may be in how we are defining "American Christianity". Does that term mean "Christianity in America"? If so, then I would absolutely agree with you. I don't think Trump represents Christianity in America. I do not believe anyone who boasts of never asking forgiveness represents Christianity anywhere. But if we mean "Americanized Christianity", then I would like agree with Rocag on that. And by "Americanized Christianity", I do not conflate that with actual Christianity, but it's more of a gross distortion created by taking concepts such as greed, objectification, nationalism, etc, then sprinkling it with Christian terminology and verses ripped from all context.

---

Understand. I just think it is false to think that is the majority of American Christians. Maybe he ought to visit my church or one like it. He might be pleasantly surprised.

dermdoc said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

And I don't think you get to decide what Christianity is or who represents it. My description might not fit your particular version of it but there is so much variation between different brands of Christianity that you can hardly say your version is the only one. For instance, from my point of view Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch others all fit under the umbrella of Christianity even though you might argue some of them shouldn't.

---

And you do not get to decide that either. And when you stated Trump represented the face of American Christianity imho you did.

---

I think some of the disconnect may be in how we are defining "American Christianity". Does that term mean "Christianity in America"? If so, then I would absolutely agree with you. I don't think Trump represents Christianity in America. I do not believe anyone who boasts of never asking forgiveness represents Christianity anywhere. But if we mean "Americanized Christianity", then I would like agree with Rocag on that. And by "Americanized Christianity", I do not conflate that with actual Christianity, but it's more of a gross distortion created by taking concepts such as greed, objectification, nationalism, etc, then sprinkling it with Christian terminology and verses ripped from all context.

---

Understand. I just think it is false to think that is the majority of American Christians. Maybe he ought to visit my church r one like it. He might be pleasantly surprised.

---

I agree that it's not the majority of Christians. I think this goes back to the problem we see elsewhere. Volume often gets equated to numbers. The Americanized Christian types, w/ leaders like Falwell, Jeffress and Franklin Graham, are the loudest so they appear greater in number. My biggest issue is that they do nothing but damage the witness of the Church. They are the Pharisees screaming "we have no king but Caesar".

Franklin Graham does a lot of good with Samaritan's Purse and I think the others do also.

dermdoc said:

---

Franklin Graham does a lot of good with Samaritan's Purse and I think the others do also.

---

He certainly wears two hats, although I do have an issue with his bloated salary ($622,000...which is 40-50% higher than the average CEO of the top 50 charities in the US) he draws from SP. But we can't really wear two hats anyways, and he undermines everything by his very vocal political partisanship.

No issues with his salary as he seems to be very hands on and responsible. It does not appear that money is his God and Franklin did start his business so I can not judge him on that. I wish all religious leaders would stay out of politics as they just do not mix.

And edited to add that his charitable hat sure seems to occupy a lot more of his time and energy than his political hat.