this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
305 points (98.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
4466 readers
1013 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the problem in this case is the source material. It has too many contradictions, leaving much up to personal interpretation, which results in people all over the spectrum that fall into the category of Christian.
The tests that Trump fails are some of the most consistent themes, repeated by Jesus and not contradicted (but rather reinforced) by other passages: pride, greed, selfishness, oppression of the poor and the needy, lying, adultery, rape – all of these are continuously, explicitly condemned by the Bible without any "mixed messages" there.
The only way to "interpret" the Bible as okay with those things is just to claim it doesn't mean exactly what it explicitly, repeatedly, directly says.
Like, without getting into the "let's debate contradictions" game, the claim that the Bible is too contradictory to identify that people like Trump aren't actually following Jesus's teachings is akin to saying "I blame the EPA guidelines: there are too many contradictions on where the blinkers get put or what the in-dash entertainment system is, so it leaves people to pick and choose what counts as an internal-combustion-engine vehicle." The core definition is pretty clear, even though the secondary features may vary — and claiming that there's no way you can apply the core definition because those secondary features vary is just epistemological surrender, rather than a fault in the core definition itself.