Just ahead of his headline spot at the CPAC convention in Virginia and the South Carolina primary on Saturday, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump delivered a speech to right-wing broadcasters Thursday night in which the former president vowed to hand power over to the Christian nationalist movement on an unprecedented scale.
Trump said during his speech at the annual conference of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) in Nashville, Tennesse that he would defend "pro-God context and content" on the nation's AM radio stations as he told the audience that religion is "the biggest thing missing" in the United States and warned, without evidence, that Christian broadcasters were "under siege" by the left and a "fascist" Biden administration.
"We have to bring back our religion," Trump declared. "We have to bring back Christianity."
Striking a Christ-like pose at one point with his arms outstretched as if on a cross, Trump mentioned his legal struggles, including multiple criminal indictments and civil judgements, and said, "I take all these arrows for you and I'm so proud to take them. I'm being indicted for you."
As Common Dreamsreported earlier this week, right-wing Christian Nationalists operating in Trump's inner circle are quietly preparing for the prospect of his possible reelection.
In his speech Thursday, during which he also promised to close the Department of Education so that Christian fundamentalists could take over school policy at the state level, Trump said, "If I get in, you're going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before."
Oh it's pretty simple.
They are Christians in name alone, seeking anyone who will affirm their hates and tell them they are justified.
Jesus warned about them, and called them hypocrites that speak nothing but death.
There was a case of a Miami church, previously lutheran, that over a period of about two years. The pastor, Jose Luis de Jesus, kept issuing crazier and crazier statements and his flock just ate it up.
First he claimed to be reincarnated John the Baptist.
Reincarnation is heretical to Christianity, ANY Christian should have know that but NoooOOoo they liked what Jose had to say because he was saying a lot of "You guys are chosen people and everything you do is justified, and keep coming to church here and God will make you all rich!"
Then he claimed to be reincarnated Jesus and the crowd LOVED IT! More money flowed into the church and the congregation GOT LARGER!
After a few months he comes forward and says "Actually I'm the Antichrist" AND THEY LOVE IT EVEN MORE.
It would have kept going too if he didn't drink himself to death in 2013.
A good chunk of his followers still think he's alive as he claimed to be immortal.
And guess what? THESE FUCKING HERETICS CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE THE BEST CHRISTIANS!
Humanity is gullible and refuses to do the hard task of self-improvement, instead seek some wild madman that tells them they are perfect just as they are.
No, no, no, no.
I am so fucking sick of reading these no true Christan excuses for the fuckery that is religion.
Religion can by anything the followers want it to be, because it's made up bullshit of contradictions that can be read in almost an infinite amount of ways.
The fact that you prefer the gentler lies in the Bible, doesn't mean the passages about stoning gays and subjugation women are less valid.
So which is the true Christianity, the one that says Jesus will come with a sword mercilessly killing his opposition, or the one that says turn the other cheek?
It's a trick question, because they are BOTH made up lies.
We are not going to fix religious people trying to get them to believe your preferred lie, because you are still selling a lie. Credulity needs to be educated not redirected into your version of "nice Jesus"
When people believe nonsense for bad reasons, we have to show them why the belief is not based on a solid foundation, and help free them from the shakeles of religion.
I really want to have this conversation with you, it's something I am very passionate about.
The only problem is I have literally never in my entire life had an intellectually honest discussion with an atheist, and trust me when I say I go out of my way to debate atheists irl and online, and have been doing so since before the internet had pictures.
But you and I both know it is a waste of time. You likely have the most shallow understanding of theology and history, and are so amazingly butthurt that your mother wouldn't let you bring your DS to church.
I'll leave you with one Biblical point that explodes the 'no true christian', from the man's mouth himself:
Matthew 23:27:
Since you know fuckall about context, I will explain it to you.
Jesus was speaking about a subsect of Judaism, the Pharisees, families of ostentatious wealth and power that flaunted their supposed holiness by wearing wealthy clothes that referenced prophesies of the coming messiah with the implication that one of them might be he. They would pray loudly on the street corners as a way to insult the others around them, like "Oh Lord I am so thankful you blessed me with wealth and power unlike that poor wretch over there begging, I must be really holy huh?" (sound familiar?)
Jesus called these people 'fools who speak death with all appearance of holiness', despite Judaic culture at the time considering them extra-blessed by the Almighty.
So we CLEARLY have precedent that Jesus despises people who put on airs of holiness and bask in their own self-righteousness.
But you will never concede the point, you will never bother actually understanding what you talk about.
All this is for you is just regurgitating the talking points of your favorite youtube celebrities for the sake of seeing your own writing.
Have a day.
proceeds to straw-man and ad hominem 🤔
proceeds to throw out words that they feel are cutting but since they don't actually understand what a strawman looks like, it falls flat
I addressed their direct statement, the 'no true scotsman' clause. That is not strawmanning.
And ad-hominems must explicitly contain the implication that the opponent's argument is either incorrect or not to be trusted BECAUSE of the insult.
For example:
OP is obviously a furry cakefucker.
That is not an ad-hominem. That is just an insult.
Example 2:
How can we trust the intellectual rigor of a furry cakefucker?
THAT is an ad-hominem attack. It implies that their argument is invalid and untrustworthy because they are a furry cakefucker.
You only used those words because you have seen other people use them in similar circumstances. Maybe next time try understanding what you are saying.