As Donald Trump increasingly infuses his campaign with Christian trappings while coasting to a third Republican presidential nomination, his support is as strong as ever among evangelicals and other conservative Christians.
“Trump supports Jesus, and without Jesus, America will fall,” said Kimberly Vaughn of Florence, Kentucky, as she joined other supporters of the former president entering a campaign rally near Dayton, Ohio.
Many of the T-shirts and hats that were worn and sold at the rally in March proclaimed religious slogans such as “Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president” and “God, Guns & Trump.” One man’s shirt declared, “Make America Godly Again,” with the image of a luminous Jesus putting his supportive hands on Trump’s shoulders.
Many attendees said in interviews they believed Trump shared their Christian faith and values. Several cited their opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, particularly to transgender expressions.
Nobody voiced concern about Trump’s past conduct or his present indictments on criminal charges, including allegations that he tried to hide hush money payments to a porn actor during his 2016 campaign. Supporters saw Trump as representing a religion of second chances.
Jesus was an anti-war, anti-capitalist, inclusivity-preaching socialist who gave free healthcare to the sick and free food to the hungry. Maybe they should crack open that book they always talk about.
If “anyone can talk to god, you don’t need all the ceremony” can turn into the Catholic Church et al for 1,900+ years, I don’t think they’re gonna read for comprehension on inclusion.
“anyone can talk to god, you don’t need all the ceremony”
That’s really close to why the Protestant Reformation happened, out of which all sorts of other lunacy has sprung. I’m not defending the Catholic Church by any means, but this particular criticism might not hit as hard as you intended it to.
John the Baptist was an apocalyptic Jew. I think it was there from the beginning. The apocalyptic Jewish sects make sense when you consider that they started their religion during the tail end of The Bronze Age collapse. They had just watched all the major powers implode, and tons of knowledge went with them. Makes sense that they would think the world was about to end.
The problem is it’s got a lot of convenient contradictory statements in it.
For example:
He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.
- Luke 22:36
This part isn’t in Marcion’s version of Luke, which is probably the earliest extant version. But it is in the canonical version.
Something very convenient given it reversed the ban found across the Synoptics on carrying a purse when ministering, which necessarily prevented taking people’s money.
Just a bonus that it also allowed for the church to take up swords too right around before the time they start executing people for ‘heresy.’
There’s plenty of problematic passages added in over the years:
Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”
- Matthew 15:22-26
So inclusive.
Why did you stop at verse 26?
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Because the woman calling him master and him then giving in is irrelevant to her being called a dog compared to children beforehand.
The author of Matthew has a clear agenda, and the passage excerpt stands on its own.
