this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
857 points (97.9% liked)

politics

31549 readers
2077 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him “don’t understand” their religion.

“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”

Kinzinger, one of Trump’s fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that “Trump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he ain’t a Christian and he’s not ‘God’s man.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Obviously Trump is not a Christian. That’s not the bit I’m referring to.

I mean the bit where he’s talking about people who follow trump and who call themselves Christian. Literally no true Scotsman. They 100% think they’re Christian, and they have just as much a claim on the title as anyone.

eta: relevant quote:

“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”.

e: and if you think they can’t be logically correct in squaring their devout Christianity with their support of Trump, they’ve got several ‘imperfect vessel’ bible quotes for you.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You are assuming though that Kinzinger is...

arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument

..., which he is not doing. He's using the definition as defined by Jesus.

Or, as @agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com puts it ...

Jesus would not recognize modern Christians by almost any measure

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I’m not assuming, I’m asserting that those gospels are heavily edited and censored by the church, so who really knows what the original intent was?

Leaving aside that the KJV that most Christians learn is filtered, sometimes erroneously, through multiple language translations, several of the original texts were cut from fairly recent editions because they contradict other texts or were morally problematic.

Claiming authority on what Jesus did or didn’t mean when referring to people who believe just as strongly they’re right is a fallacy, especially when, given the context of many other horrible teachings the bible espouses, it’s morally dubious at best. And those same texts have been used by church officials who should be authorities on the topic to justify atrocities.

So yeah, this is a fallacy.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m not assuming, I’m asserting that those gospels are heavily edited and censored by the church, so who really knows what the original intent was?

That's one hell of a debate catch-all escape hatch you've got there.

If you're arguing that what we've all been told about Jesus's intent and teachings are not true, then that's a completely different discussion to be had, and we're wasting our time discussing this current subject.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

It’s not a debate catch-all, it’s just the truth.

My point is and has been that Christians who say other Christians are Christianing wrong are using a fallacy, because it’s just as valid that they think you are doing it wrong, and everyone on all sides can find bible quotes that support their views.

A hundred years ago, white supremacists used Jesus’ teachings to validate slavery, and they thought they were just as correct as you think you are. You can say they were using those passages erroneously, but they’d say the same about you with equal conviction and, looking at it from the outside, you’re both right.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Claiming authority on what Jesus did or didn’t mean when referring to people who believe just as strongly they’re right is a fallacy,

Not when there is an entire book explaining the ideology of Jesus. Ignoring everything it says proves they haven't read it which proves Kinzinger right.