How Martin Luther paved the way for Donald Trump

[Dead Duck]

I didn't vote for Trump - my guns did.
Well, I voted FOR my guns because they were not allowed to vote on their own. So technically, Yes, I made a "Strawman Vote" but I think it's legal in this case. Hey, if people can marry their cars....

Why did my guns vote for Trump? I can definitely say it was for self preservation. They don't want to "End" any time soon. They are single issue voters. Can you blame them?

Are my guns religious? I know a few of them are. In fact for years they have been going to church on a regular basis. They are very well behaved and I've never heard a peep out of any of them during the services.



The real question here is -
Would Martin Luther King Jr. have voted for Trump? I think he would have. In the past he has voted "against" people in elections for one reason or another and this last election was all about voting against opponents rather than voting for anyone in particular.
























Oh Happy Day!

 

[jamil]

But Christians that support known prideful adulterers, scammers, serial liars, pro-death penalty, foul-mouthed, who hold the company of pornstars and playmates don't?
Assuming they lean upon their faith in declaring support.

You have a binary choice. If you want to sit it out because your conscience won’t let you vote for either evil, that’s fine. It’s a reasonable position. But one of the two will be president. It’s also a reasonable position to pick the better of the two outcomes, even if one of them has all the deficiencies you mentioned. Especially when, in your estimation the moral deficiencies of the one candidate don’t tend to affect policy all that much, and the other’s does.

I think claiming Christians are hypocritical because they support the very unchristian behaving trump is a facile claim.you’re not considering all the facts and especially the reasons they say they support Trump. And I’m not saying they aren’t hypocrites, because almost everyone is, at least a little. But this isn’t a valid accusation against an entire class of people, just from the criteria you gave.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Christians supporting people who have done bad things is not a problem. We all have done bad things. Christians supporting people who want to legalize abortion is the head scratcher. A politician’s personal life doesn’t have anything to do with how they will impact society IMO. It’s what they will do with legislation that should be the deciding factor. My Christian faith did not stop me from voting for trump.

 

[rhino]

Christians supporting people who have done bad things is not a problem. We all have done bad things. Christians supporting people who want to legalize abortion is the head scratcher. A politician’s personal life doesn’t have anything to do with how they will impact society IMO. It’s what they will do with legislation that should be the deciding factor. My Christian faith did not stop me from voting for trump.

I cringed every time I saw an Obama bumper sticker in the parking lot of my local Parish. Unclear on the concept, unclear on the faith they claim to practice, and unaware that their real religion was supporting anyone with a "D" after their name.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I cringed every time I saw an Obama bumper sticker in the parking lot of my local Parish. Unclear on the concept, unclear on the faith they claim to practice, and unaware that their real religion was supporting anyone with a "D" after their name.

Must have been a Mormon Parish.
Because any Christian voting purely based on using faith as a directive, at least from the Protestant or Catholic Churches, would appear to be clueless if they voted for Romney... or maybe they secretly were faking it.

 

[Dead Duck]

Must have been a Mormon Parish.
Because any Christian voting purely based on using faith as a directive, at least from the Protestant or Catholic Churches, would appear to be clueless if they voted for Romney... or maybe they secretly were faking it.

Careful, you don't want to mix up Catholics with the Christians.
They tend to get offended. I almost got crucified when I did that last time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Careful, you don't want to mix up Catholics with the Christians.
They tend to get offended. I almost got crucified when I did that last time.

Lol, I'm just pointing out that an "evangelical" based on faith, who thinks voting on Obama is "unclear of the concept," (concerning religious faiths), I would have to wonder how clear they were if they voted for somebody who believed no one would enter Heaven without the "consent of John Smith." Consent? In my world, that's blasphemy, and a serious example of it.

 

[rhino]

Careful, you don't want to mix up Catholics with the Christians.
They tend to get offended. I almost got crucified when I did that last time.

 

[Twangbanger]

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-martin-luther-paved-the-way-for-donald-trump/

This article is retarded.

Okay, Trumper evangelicals. Why Trump?

Hint: It ain't got nuttin' to do with Martin Luther.

Ok, I'll bite. What's retarded about it?

Consider, for example, the following excerpt:

"...Many evangelicals see the proper role of the government to be imposing order, not showing mercy..."

There's no principled, consistent position with regard to the proper role of government there. They have no problem with it wielding the power; it's all in the manner of its exercise. During the time the Obama administration was hassling in court with Hobby Lobby, Kim Davis was a sort of folk-hero to many of them. They had no problem with government "being in the marriage business," during the umpteen decades when its definition of marriage coincided with theirs. Only once the definition changed, did they became ersatz libertarians on the issue. They hate government when it flouts and attacks their personal views; they turn around and love it when, under a different administration, it sidles up to them and hugs them. A distaste for elites, is not precisely the same thing as a distaste for government.
​

I personally think it ain't got nuttin' to do with Jordan Peterson. However, taking your assertion at face-value, if you think it's all about temperament, then the above-quoted observation seems to suggest the author's explanation actually agrees with yours to a good degree.

​

I'm no Christian, but I don't think the article is retarded. I think he's onto something. Christianity is not some geeky-logical-libertarian Spock philosophy that has to connect all the dots together in a way that is satisfyingly consistent to someone with the nerd mind of a computer programmer. It is enigmatic in ways that its believers may not even comprehend; even more so when it interacts with politics to make decisions about which politician best advances their interests. But as you pointed out in your rebuke of Kut's shallowly-reasoned assertion, that is not the same thing as hypocrisy. The Evangelicals in question do not even need to know who Martin Luther is, to respond favorably to similar cues. I think the article is simply recognizing that. ​

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, I'll bite. What's retarded about it?

Consider, for example, the following excerpt:

"...Many evangelicals see the proper role of the government to be imposing order, not showing mercy..."

There's no principled, consistent position with regard to the proper role of government there. They have no problem with it wielding the power; it's all in the manner of its exercise. During the time the Obama administration was hassling in court with Hobby Lobby, Kim Davis was a sort of folk-hero to many of them. They had no problem with government "being in the marriage business," during the umpteen decades when its definition of marriage coincided with theirs. Only once the definition changed, did they became ersatz libertarians on the issue. They hate government when it flouts and attacks their personal views; they turn around and love it when, under a different administration, it sidles up to them and hugs them. A distaste for elites, is not precisely the same thing as a distaste for government.
​

I personally think it ain't got nuttin' to do with Jordan Peterson. However, taking your assertion at face-value, if you think it's all about temperament, then the above-quoted observation seems to suggest the author's explanation actually agrees with yours to a good degree.

​

I'm no Christian, but I don't think the article is retarded. I think he's onto something. Christianity is not some geeky-logical-libertarian Spock philosophy that has to connect all the dots together in a way that is satisfyingly consistent to someone with the nerd mind of a computer programmer. It is enigmatic in ways that its believers may not even comprehend; even more so when it interacts with politics to make decisions about which politician best advances their interests. But as you pointed out in your rebuke of Kut's shallowly-reasoned assertion, that is not the same thing as hypocrisy. The Evangelicals in question do not even need to know who Martin Luther is, to respond favorably to similar cues. I think the article is simply recognizing that. ​

That's your opinion, but it's anything but shallowly reasoned.

 

[BugI02]

John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

You would do well to remember that wisdom is not a destination, it is a journey. And while I am quite aware of my shortcomings and my sins (moreso than another will ever be), such matters are not for the likes of you to judge

Get thee behind me

 

[jamil]

That's your opinion, but it's anything but shallowly reasoned.

Well, first this before getting to Twang's thesis. I say your position was facile--I'm not going to go as far as saying shallowly reasoned. You may have put in a great deal of reasoning into it. But the result is facile because you're not considering the facts you've filtered out. All the facts and causes INCLUDE THEIRS TOO. They keep telling you that you're getting their position wrong. Undoubtedly their model of themselves isn't complete either, because they filter the facts too. But they're probably more right about their own reasoning than you've considered. So why not start believing them, at least a little, instead of comparing their behavior to the representative model of your own construction?

Hypocrisy is a pretense of holding a position one doesn't actually don't hold. So fake virtue is an example of hypocrisy. Inconsistently applying standards isn't exactly the same thing as hypocrisy. And especially constructing an inaccurate model of behaviors and causes makes dubious any claim of hypocrisy.

Maybe you don't really understand the position they hold as much as you think, so the behavior you think they should have doesn't line up with your mental model of them. For example, you and Doc go at it all the time, and I think you both are doing that. You guys just talk past each other. You argue against inaccurate constructions of the other's statements. I don't get the sense that either of you knows how to interpret the other's language, much less world view. You seem to have both built mental models of each other from your own respective filtering. Maybe neither one of you actually sucks as bad as you both think.

 

[jamil]

Ok, I'll bite. What's retarded about it?

Consider, for example, the following excerpt:

"...Many evangelicals see the proper role of the government to be imposing order, not showing mercy..."

There's no principled, consistent position with regard to the proper role of government there. They have no problem with it wielding the power; it's all in the manner of its exercise. During the time the Obama administration was hassling in court with Hobby Lobby, Kim Davis was a sort of folk-hero to many of them. They had no problem with government "being in the marriage business," during the umpteen decades when its definition of marriage coincided with theirs. Only once the definition changed, did they became ersatz libertarians on the issue. They hate government when it flouts and attacks their personal views; they turn around and love it when, under a different administration, it sidles up to them and hugs them. A distaste for elites, is not precisely the same thing as a distaste for government.
​

I personally think it ain't got nuttin' to do with Jordan Peterson. However, taking your assertion at face-value, if you think it's all about temperament, then the above-quoted observation seems to suggest the author's explanation actually agrees with yours to a good degree.

​

I'm no Christian, but I don't think the article is retarded. I think he's onto something. Christianity is not some geeky-logical-libertarian Spock philosophy that has to connect all the dots together in a way that is satisfyingly consistent to someone with the nerd mind of a computer programmer. It is enigmatic in ways that its believers may not even comprehend; even more so when it interacts with politics to make decisions about which politician best advances their interests. But as you pointed out in your rebuke of Kut's shallowly-reasoned assertion, that is not the same thing as hypocrisy. The Evangelicals in question do not even need to know who Martin Luther is, to respond favorably to similar cues. I think the article is simply recognizing that. ​

A couple of things. First, the temperament bit is referenced from Haidt, not Peterson, but the view isn't incompatible with Peterson.

Second, Luther was an exemplar not a root cause. That's my contention. Luther didn't pave the way for Trump. Evolution did, including social evolution. I don't say the article is retarded as a defense for Christianity, or Protestantism, or Luther. I think it's retarded for the same reason I pushed back on Kut. That it does not sufficiently consider the complexity of causes.

Second, I only used the word "retarded" because I am consciously increasing my use of the word to combat banning of words.

Third, I completely agree with Expat's sentiment about the amusement value of people trying to explain why the "other" thinks the way they do. They rarely get it right, usually humorously wrong, because they base conclusions on input they filtered through their own biases. The most accurate model is constructed from all the relevant facts. I don't think individuals can effectively do that because we're limited and flawed with bias. Certainly "tribes" can't do that. Unless we have a way to aggregate input from the compliment of all the individuals' filtered inputs, we're going to make biased conclusions about things. The article is "retarded" because it inaccurately draws conclusions from filtered facts.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Second, Luther was an exemplar not a root cause. That's my contention. Luther didn't pave the way for Trump. Evolution did, including social evolution. I don't say the article is retarded as a defense for Christianity, or Protestantism, or Luther. I think it's retarded for the same reason I pushed back on Kut. That it does not sufficiently consider the complexity of causes...

So would you be willing to "show your work," and submit your own thesis for examination on this? I have no idea what you're saying.

Keeping in mind that the title of the article is poorly-chosen: the author is not actually trying to explain in broad, general terms "Why Trump Happened." He's explaining the much more specific issue of the seemingly puzzling affinity of a particular group towards him. I think I grasp your evolutionary explanation of why "Trump happened" in the general sense. I'm not certain if you're asserting that effect somehow surgically operates on one particular group of supporters and not others.

 

[jamil]

So would you be willing to "show your work," and submit your own thesis for examination on this? I have no idea what you're saying.

Keeping in mind that the title of the article is poorly-chosen: the author is not actually trying to explain in broad, general terms "Why Trump Happened." He's explaining the much more specific issue of the seemingly puzzling affinity of a particular group towards him. I think I grasp your evolutionary explanation of why "Trump happened" in the general sense. I'm not certain if you're asserting that effect somehow surgically operates on one particular group of supporters and not others.

I think I agree with your citation of the following as pretty much the most central point the article's making:

"In accord with Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms, many evangelicals see the proper role of the government to be imposing order, not showing mercy."

I quoted the whole statement though, because this is the linking statement with Luther. And they're getting it wrong. Evangelicals aren't doing it in accordance with Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms. They're supporting Trump in accordance with their temperament.

It's reasonable to think Evangelicals tend to be temperamentally conservative, and to a significant extent, at least somewhat authoritarian. I don't really consider Trump a conservative. But the conservative proclivities he has seems to resonate with evangelicals. So I'm not surprised that evangelicals would be more temperamentally suited to support Trump over some of the other candidates. It's got nothing to do with Luther. Trump stumped on some things that really hit home for a lot of evangelicals. I see no justification for explaining it away as Trump playing Martin Luther when there's a more obvious answer available.

As far as the apparent inconsistency of Christians supporting an obviously immoral person like Trump, given what Trumpers tend to say about Trump it seems more apparent that they like him despite his faults rather than because of them.

The Trumpers who seem to like his faults don't seem all that "evangelical" to me. And I've only met a few Trumpers who deny Trump is immoral. So it's not like they're deluded into thinking that he's an upstanding, moral guy. Most say they'd rather he not talk about grabbing women by the *****. Most would rather he not use hookers, and therefore not be in the position to have to pay them off. It sounds like to me, their justification for Trump is all the reasons you see here on INGO. I'm inclined to take their word for it, rather than having to explain it away with bull****.

Now, if you're looking for the explanation of why I think temperament has so much to do with political preferences, that's not my work. I'm applying what I've read of the works of others who've produced research in this area.

 

[JettaKnight]

How have I missed this?!

OK, from the start...

Over time, Luther’s core principles of faith in Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of all believers became pillars of American Protestantism—especially of the evangelical variety.

No, those were always pillars. Mainline churches have abandoned them in the last fifty years.

Then this:

In both his obsequiousness toward the powerful and his opposition to social change, Graham was very much Luther’s heir.

Has no merit whatsoever. He tries to make the point that since Graham was anti-communist and anti-pornography that he was against, "social change".

Luther’s impact on American life is most apparent when looking at the place of the Bible in it. According to surveys, nearly nine in 10 American households own a Bible, and nearly half of all adult Americans say that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

I don't think anyone really argued against the Bible being the inspired Word of God until liberal theology and the low view of Scripture came about in the 20th century. Luther didn't create that, that was a part of the Church from the beginning. Luther wanted to reduce the RCC's added dogma and tradition to be subservient to the Bible.

Then, he laughably tries to connect Joel Osteen to Martin Luther!



I voted for Trump. I am a Gospel-centered Christian. However, I was insulted when Trump made attempts to pander to me and my ilk. I don't believe he is a Christian (IMHO), but we're living in a post-Christian country now, and I don't believe Hilliary is a Christian either, so... what's a Baptist to do?

Did I actively support him? No.
Did I vote for him? Yes.
Do I pray for the Holy Spirit to guide his leadership? Yes.


How should Christians deal with politics? Russel Moore has a thought. Or two. Being evangelical was pretty easy in the 80's and 90's... now it's twisted mess and we've hitched our wagon to a train of horses headed for a cliff. Oh, Luther had nothing to do with this; just ask any 18th century Puritan.

 

[JettaKnight]

A rather poignant paragraph from Dr. Moore's article:

American evangelicalism is old and sick and weak, and doesn’t even know it. We are bored by what the Bible reveals as mysterious and glorious, and red-in-the-face about what hardly matters in the broad sweep of eternity. We clamor for the kind of power the world can recognize while ignoring the very power of God that comes through Christ and him crucified. We’ve traded in the Sermon on the Mount for slogans on our cars. We’ve exchanged Christ the King for Christ the meme. And through it all, we demonstrate what we care about—the same power and self-leverage this age already values.

This is in part why I've started to avoid labeling myself as a evangelical. It started to resemble a theocracy, as if we can spread Christ's love by punching anyone that says, "Happy Holidays".

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh, and to lighten up a bit:
Poll: Evangelical Support For Trump Would Stay Same If He Were Discovered To Be Antichrist

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, and to lighten up a bit:
Poll: Evangelical Support For Trump Would Stay Same If He Were Discovered To Be Antichrist

Whew... that's a hard one. I really don't know which way I would go in believing if that was true or false.

 

[jamil]

How have I missed this?!

OK, from the start...

No, those were always pillars. Mainline churches have abandoned them in the last fifty years.

Then this:

Has no merit whatsoever. He tries to make the point that since Graham was anti-communist and anti-pornography that he was against, "social change".



I don't think anyone really argued against the Bible being the inspired Word of God until liberal theology and the low view of Scripture came about in the 20th century. Luther didn't create that, that was a part of the Church from the beginning. Luther wanted to reduce the RCC's added dogma and tradition to be subservient to the Bible.

Then, he laughably tries to connect Joel Osteen to Martin Luther!



I voted for Trump. I am a Gospel-centered Christian. However, I was insulted when Trump made attempts to pander to me and my ilk. I don't believe he is a Christian (IMHO), but we're living in a post-Christian country now, and I don't believe Hilliary is a Christian either, so... what's a Baptist to do?

Did I actively support him? No.
Did I vote for him? Yes.
Do I pray for the Holy Spirit to guide his leadership? Yes.


How should Christians deal with politics? Russel Moore has a thought. Or two. Being evangelical was pretty easy in the 80's and 90's... now it's twisted mess and we've hitched our wagon to a train of horses headed for a cliff. Oh, Luther had nothing to do with this; just ask any 18th century Puritan.

This strongly comports with what every Evangelical Christian I know says about these things.