Why do so many evangelical Christians support former President Donald Trump despite his decades of documented ungodly behavior?

An in-depth report from The Economist shows that it has a simple explanation: They believe that God personally appointed him to rule the United States.

In fact, the report cites a survey conducted by Denison University political scientist Paul Djupe that around 30 percent of Americans believe Trump “was anointed by God to become president.”

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Right so where does it say what you said? It doesn’t. Your preacher made it up. You can infer that if you want but you can infer anything if you try hard enough. Since we only have one base account we can only use that and at no point is there a mention of making money being the issue.

    They’re remarkably similar accounts,

    That tends to happen when people copy each other. Like how Bruce Wayne was an orphan in my different media. John copied off the three others, Luke off Matthew, and Matthew off Mark. So of course if Mark had it the other ones would. Where Mark got it is a muddy. Chances are he made it up based on the news of the Temple’s destruction in 70AD.

    Why not click the links?

    I don’t enable human intellectual laziness.

    Regardless, I mostly made my point. For the “reap what you sow” message, my personal opinion is that it isn’t literal. I don’t think he’s saying they’ll get wealthy with worldly money if they donate money (i.e. charity as an investment), but that they’ll receive spiritual blessings for putting others ahead of themselves (i.e. if you sow love, you’ll reap love).

    Ok? I don’t care. It doesn’t change the fact that he was telling people to give him all their money.

    The reason for moving money to Jerusalem was likely two-fold, a famine in Egypt likely impacted Judea more than other regions, and Paul wasn’t well liked in Jerusalem, so he worked extra hard to get money to those suffering in Jerusalem to help solve both problems. He was a prominent figure in the church, hence why repairing that relationship is important. That sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation, but we obviously have limited information here. He likely also raised money for local congregations, but there wouldn’t be as much of a point to dwelling on that in a letter that’s intended to build faith.

    And? He bribed people to like him. Not really an original idea.

    Well, given that he’s dead and we don’t have many accounts of his life, I can’t really speak to his trustworthiness. There are people I absolutely trust to use money appropriately, and there are those I don’t. Supposedly he gained the trust of certain groups and not others. We don’t know how he used the money, we just know he thanked people for donations, at least in certain cases.

    He said that he was not lying between 5-10 times in “his” 13 letters. If you want to trust a person who is often telling you how trustworthy they are, instead of showing it, be my guest. Me personally I know what projection is, I know we always catch the anti-gay politician with a rent-a-boy and the guy who constantly tells me how I should trust him is the one I shouldn’t.

    Ever notice how in all his letters when he talks about himself he is always the badass and the victim at the same time? Might want to read up on grandiose victimhood and how common it is with people who have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      He bribed people to like him

      That’s certainly one take. How about I provide another. Let’s say I offend you and I work hard to make it up to you to show that I’m genuinely sorry and want to make restitution. Is that also bribery? No, it’s a demonstration of genuine care for you.

      Couldn’t that also be an explanation for Paul’s actions here?

      He said he was not lying

      You’ll have to point out the passages.

      Here’s one that appears clear (2 Corinthians 12:16, from one scholars agree that he wrote):

      Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!

      If we read the surrounding context, it doesn’t sound like someone who is manipulative (14-19):

      Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.

      So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. If I love you more, will you love me less?

      Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!

      Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent to you?

      I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not walk in the same footsteps by the same Spirit?

      Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening.

      Yeah, he throws a bit of a fit before this point, but he also points out that he didn’t take money from them and he doesn’t intend to, because he cares more about their well-being than money. His goal here seems to be to compare himself to other “false Apostles”, who presumably were trying to compete with his authority.

      Now, I don’t personally think this is a very effective way to go about it, but we also don’t know what those “false Apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13) were doing. Maybe they were extorting people and Paul wanted to show that he didn’t do anything like that, so he’s different. Idk, maybe this was a legitimate way to clarify things and not a weird humblebrag-fest. Regardless, what I see is a message of love, with some weird self-aggrandizement that may or may not be explained if we had more context.