Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

I'm not saying that a Christian shouldn't support a billionaire. (Some of my best friends are billionaires. ) I'm saying that a Christian should support someone with at least close to the Christian values that they espouse.Incidentally that quote you use has not about going to hell. It is about being part of the kingdom of those who can turn away from , (amongst other false idols), the love of money in becoming part of the Kingdom of Jesus followers in this life. Wealth and other distractions just make it harder to take the focus off of the self and put it on others. Many such as Jean Vanier, a man born into wealth have been able to do just that.

And I am suggesting that most people don't do that. With the exception of a teeny-tiny fragment, nobody votes for candidates because they agree with their positions on religion. The closest they come to doing so is voting for a set of social values that are only loosely tied to religion.Do you vote for candidates that espouse the same religious views as yourself? Who among the current candidates meets that criteria?

In a way, I do. I vote for candidates who share my views on the role of religion in civic life. I definitely don't vote for candidates whose proposals contradict my view on that.I wouldn't expect Christians to vote based on a candidate's religious beliefs, but I would expect them to reject candidates whose proposals contradict the Christian voters' beliefs, say, on the treatment of other human beings.

Fine but most people vote for someone who holds the same world view that they do and their world view is largely formed by their religious beliefs if they are religious.They might be looking for a candidate with family values, however one defines them, pro-life or pro-choice values etc. I just don't see Trump consistently holding views that are representative of the Christian right in the US.However, I get your point and I probably have come on a little strong and I let my personal bias influence what I have written.Frankly in the US right now I have no idea who I would support. I obviously don't vote. If I were to be voting in the US I would normally favour the Republicans but there are many times I have favoured the democratic candidate.

Either everybody is incredibly stupid or you've made some miscalculation.

I am sometimes surprised by the way some Christians believe their fellow human beings should be treated. Surely we've seen enough examples of seemingly contradictory view points among the Christians who post here.

Perhaps they will let you vote for your fellow Canadian, Ted Cruz. Personally, I really don't see how the Republican platform as a whole is in line with the teachings of Jesus. The things Trump has said have been said by many other leaders in the Republican party, and it is certainly echoed in their policies. Of course, it could be that neither part fits will with Christian teachings.What seems to stand out with Trump is his tone. He loudly says what others in the Republican party are whispering.

That's exactly right. For some reason, American Christian fundamentalism is somehow inextricably linked to their political and nationalist persuasions, even though most their political and nationalistic values are antithetical to traditional Christian values. This Crusader mentality is an aberration of traditional Christian values, but if you tell them that then you are immediately dismissed as some libtard commie faggot atheist.More to the point, if we look at how many fundamentalists are openly supporting Donald Trump, it seems laughable given that Trump is concerned with two things -- greed and power. He covets mammon and he covets power, but they are willing to overlook that because so ingrained in to their conscience is this hybrid between conservative American values with Christian values. They're apparently too stupid to see that people like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump are merely playing to the crowd. They are simply pandering to their base which conflates nationalism with their religious values.Why precisely this is the case is likely very complex and likely took multiple generations to come to fruition, but it doubtless originated somewhere during or just after World War II. That was the catalyst, but this amalgamation of the two belief systems truly became infused with the rise of the Religious Right, somewhere in the late 70's and early 80's with people like Jerry Falwell vying to persuade Ronald Reagan to their Crusader version of Christianity.Now we see bible passages talking about PEACE being etched in to serial numbers for weapons used for WAR.Can you stand the irony? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Mike Huckabee is probably the ONLY one up on the stage who actually truly could be considered "religious." The rest of them use it as a stage prop to get votes. All presidents, even the most liberal, still have to openly support Christianity, even though we all know secretly they're atheists or agnostics.But even as genuine people like Huckabee and Glenn Beck are, they are nevertheless very susceptible to the dictates of the Religious Right in the 700 Club version of what Christianity is.So, no, I doubt any candidate could possibly meet that criteria. Obama bloviated all about bringing Christianity back to the Sermon on the Mount and then bombed the shit out of Pakistan 2 days in to taking office.They're all scum. And I suspect this is case because you couldn't possibly want to be the President of the United States without deeply wanting control.The only two candidates that I can think of that may fall outside of those parameters is Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. I think the people sense a genuine concern whereas the rest simply covet power and control.

quote:

---

person who takes their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith. They typically believe in a literal, verbatim interpretation of their scripture. They also have ridiculous, childish defenses to intelligent criticism of their beliefs that border on insanity.

---

I don't think there is a literal following of the Christian religion by so-called fundamentalists.They ignore what is inconvenient to them. They pretend like teachings contrary to their respective church's teachings don't even exist. They don't sweat it. They ignore it.It is a selective fundamentalism.

quote:

---

Mike Huckabee is probably the ONLY one up on the stage who actually truly could be considered "religious." The rest of them use it as a stage prop to get votes

---

I'm glad you said "religious" and not Christian.I hope people noticed.

I came across this article in the latest edition of Christianity Today and thought it was relevant. All Christians Are Biased VotersI go back to my point about fundamentalists in the US. They are in large numbers apparently backing Trump. My contention again is that they do this because their world view is based on their understanding of the Bible, their politics and their nationalism. In this case I'm suggesting that in order to support Trump they are prepared to compromise their religious beliefs in favour of their politics and their nationalism IMHO.Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed link

The part above is something I can agree with. But the conclusion that this bias shows hypocrisy or compromise of religious values is where we disagree. I accept that the fundys are sincere in their beliefs and in how they vote even though I think they are misguided.Beyond that, why is compromise such a bad word anyway? It is not as though one candidate is the anti-Christ.I understand that you cannot vote, but which republican candidate attracts you. I don't see a single one that I could vote for. I understand that Trump is not your man. Huckabee? Cruz? To be clear, I am curious about which candidate you think presents the right choice for an American Christian.

Are you sure?

I'm still pretty sure Ronald Reagan is the anti-Christ. I'm just waiting for him to rise from the dead. I wonder if the Twenty-second Amendment applies to zombies.