#while claiming it was to defend good christian society from the scary muslims

[citizentruth-blog]

The Trump Presidency As Religious Cult? Not As Weird As You Might Think - YOUR NEWS

New Post has been published on https://citizentruth.org/the-trump-presidency-as-religious-cult-not-as-weird-as-you-might-think/

The Trump Presidency As Religious Cult? Not As Weird As You Might Think

Scholars of religious studies such as Reza Aslan warn that support of Trump by some white evangelicals is like that of a religious cult, which would present a clear danger to our country. (Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr/Creative Commons)

In November of 2017, avid Donald Trump supporter Mark Lee, as part of a panel of Trump voters speaking with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, spoke about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia in the context of religious faith. His comments, which made the rounds on the 24-hour news cycle/water-cooler political discussion loop, were truly astonishing to many. Here’s the one that had people, if not up in arms, scratching their heads:

Let me tell you, if Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, “Hold on a second: I need to check with the president if it is true.” That is how confident I feel in the president.

You read that right. Hold on, Mr. Savior, I have to ask President Trump if what you’re saying is God’s honest truth. Beyond the seeming absurdity of this scenario—Jesus returned just to tell Trump supporters about his connection with Russia?—the expressed faith in Trump above all others (and I am not using the word faith lightly) was duly baffling.

When Camerota pressed Lee for additional context, Lee, a pest control business owner who expressed vague notions of Trump being an advocate of the little guy, America-first, a drainer of the swamp, and a non-politician, stressed his belief that Trump is a good person, and that he (Trump) “has taken so many shots for us.” Presumably, that “us” is the American people, and any backlash is related to jealousy of his constant “winning.” Dude can’t help it if he’s so famous, handsome, and rich—that’s just how he rolls.

Any number of observers might choose not to share Mark Lee’s views. Heck, I sure don’t. Still, as extreme as Lee’s stances might seem, they may not be that far off from other people’s admiration for or faith in the current President of the United States. Reza Aslan, author, commentator, intellectual, and religious scholar, recently authored a video for Big Think about his notion that the Trump presidency is a religious cult. At first blush, Aslan’s comments might seem as grandiose as Lee’s. Trump as a cult leader? And his devotees are the ones who have drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid?

For all our skepticism, though, Aslan does make his case in a very well-thought-out manner. First, before we even get to “why” certain Americans feel compelled to hold up Donald Trump, there’s the matter of “who.” Aslan cites a statistic that 81% of white evangelists who voted in the 2016 election went for Trump. That’s pretty significant, especially when considering that’s a higher percentage than George W. Bush received, an actual white evangelical. What else is significant about this figure? Well, for one, 67% of evangelicals of color who voted cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton. Thus, when Aslan instructs us not to ignore that there is a racial element to Trump’s support, we would be quick to agree that he ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie.

As to why, however, white evangelicals “acted more white than evangelical” in their backing of Trump, as Aslan and others have put it, one element Aslan points to is the influence of what is known as the prosperity gospel. Loosely speaking, this is the idea that financial success is God’s blessing, and through faith, preaching the word of God, and, of course, generous donations, one’s material wealth will increase. In other words, if the Lord didn’t want you to have that Mercedes-Benz, he wouldn’t have made it so dadgum shiny. This is the sort of Christianity that Aslan explicitly dismisses and rejects, associating it with the likes of “charlatans” like Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes, but given Trump’s boasts of wealth and ostentatious displays of such, it makes sense that Christians who adhere to this doctrine would back him, even when his spiritual credentials are, er, lacking.

Additionally, Aslan points to Trump’s promises to afford secular benefits to white evangelical groups and other religious affiliations. In Trump’s apparently ambiguous vows to “give them back their power,” Aslan points to Trump’s willingness to defend Christians in their goal of making a stand on specific issues—even if he may not agree with their positions on those underlying issues—as well as his indication of intent, for instance, to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations like churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Just a few days ago, Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of the Treasury not to find churches guilty of “implied endorsements” much as secular organizations wouldn’t be. Never mind that this could help create a slippery slope that allows churches to bypass campaign finance laws and effectually become partisan super PACs. That sweet, sweet support from the religious right is too much to ignore.

Meanwhile, all of this may merely be a prologue to a separate conversation we need to be having about Donald Trump, morality, evangelicals, and the intersection of the Venn diagram of their circles. As Reza Aslan insists, none of the above explains why white evangelicals have gone from a voting bloc that has insisted on a candidate’s morality as a significant qualification for office to one that eschews such concerns—in the span of one election cycle, no less. To reinforce this idea, Aslan highlights the fact that, re Trump, self-identifying atheists were more likely to consider morality as important than white evangelicals. So much for being “values voters.”

As Aslan reasons, this is more than can be reasoned away by talk of race or the prosperity gospel or the Johnson Amendment, and points to a different conclusion: that Trump, his presidency, and his most influential supporters have turned a significant portion of his white evangelical base into a religious cult, and a dangerous one at that. From where he (Aslan) stands, all the signs are there. For one, he points to Trump’s infamous remark that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes as being a kind of prophetic revelation. Aslan also alludes to statements made by Pat Robertson that he (Robertson) had a dream in which God took him up to Heaven and Trump was seated at His right hand—the space traditionally reserved for Jesus Christ—and Robert Jeffress, Robertson’s pastor, who said that he (Jeffress) prefers Trump as a candidate to someone “who expresses the values of Jesus.” Suddenly, Mark Lee doesn’t sound so out of place.

The implications, in short, are scary. As Aslan instructs, cults, particularly when confronted by the realities of the world, do not tend to end well. The Trump presidency, for all its claims of stability and success, by most objective accounts is on the brink of collapse, its central figure “spiraling out of control,” as Aslan puts it, and the subject of regular conversations about impeachment or other removal. In the perhaps likely event that leadership fails, the response for cult followers is often to double down on the group’s mantra, and this creates, at least in Aslan’s mind, a very perilous situation for the country at large. As he closes his address, “The only thing more dangerous than a cult leader like Trump is a martyred cult leader.” Ominous, indeed.

Reza Aslan is a religious scholar, and since he often approaches worldly matters from a spiritual frame of reference, even with his treatise on why Donald Trump’s presidency is a religious cult, there would likely be doubters and dissenters on this point. On the right, because so much of politics these days involves taking sides, this is all but a given. Naysayers would undoubtedly highlight Aslan’s Iranian heritage and Muslim beliefs (in reality, his faith is more complex, having been born into a Shia Muslim family, converting to evangelical Christianity, and then converting back to Muslim, all while largely regarding religion as nothing more than a series of metaphors and symbols designed to express one’s faith), as well as his anti-Trump animus (after Trump’s comments on the 2017 terrorist attack in London in which a van struck and killed pedestrians on London, Aslan referred to POTUS as a “piece of shit” and “man baby,” comments that, ahem, didn’t go over too well with then-employer CNN). Never mind that that Aslan is a theologian and literally talks about, thinks about, and writes about this stuff for a living. Because he doesn’t care much for Trump, his opinions must, therefore, be invalid, right?

For the non-shameless-Trump-backers among us, though, there might similarly be a reluctance to characterize the President’s following in terms of a destructive religious cult, since these societies tend to remind us of devices of works of fiction set in apocalyptic times. To this, I submit people may be understating just how abnormal Trump and his presidency are. Besides, as many would aver, we are in the midst of a crisis right now, one primarily borne of climate concerns, but not without worry over its political stability. Trump just pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal without an apparent replacement strategy. Does this make the world safer? Does this instill confidence that the U.S. is a country that honors its agreements and is therefore worthy of trust? On both counts, the answer is a resounding “no,” and that should inspire concern from Americans regardless of their political orientation.

Then again, maybe it’s just that devout Christians can be hypocrites or otherwise twist the Bible to suit their purposes. Phil Zuckerman, a professor at Pitzer College and someone who specializes in studies of atheism and secularity, among other topics, penned an essay shortly after Donald Trump’s upset 2016 electoral victory regarding the role of religion in the election’s outcome. Zuckerman—who also cites the statistic about 81% of white evangelicals voting for Trump, as well as 56% of American voters who attend church at least once a week going for the orange-skinned one—points to other disappointing tendencies of the Christian right.

For one, they tend to regard men as superior leaders and reinforce values that support male dominance over obeisant females. They also hate, hate, hate homosexuals and tend to fear and hate other religions, dividing people into a saved-unsaved binary. Furthermore, fundamentalist Christians place a stronger emphasis on authoritarianism, and mistrust and reject the science which clashes with their faith. Or, as Zuckerman frames this, they are a sanctimonious lot, a subdivision of the American electorate that touts morals and yet voted en masse to elect someone in Trump who is the epitome of immorality. As with Aslan’s criticisms, people would be wont to use context to dismiss Zuckerman’s views. He made these comments not long after Election Day, and thus was probably harboring strong feelings at the time of his piece’s publication. Also, he’s interested mainly in secular studies. Maybe he just hates religious types. PROFESSOR, YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING.

Maybe, maybe not. Irrespective of Reza Aslan’s invectives directed at President Trump and Phil Zuckerman’s discontent with strong Christians for voting for someone clearly not of the same mold, this sense of devotion to Trump by a significant portion of the American people is startling and disconcerting, especially in light of the comparisons between Trump and Jesus. These are the same kinds of “values voters” who, say, conceive of gun ownership as a God-given right. Fun fact: the right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, not one of the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill. Gun ownership increases the likelihood you will violate this precept. How does one reconcile these two apparently competing interests?

One oft-cited biblical passage, Matthew 10:34, in which Jesus is believed to have said that he “did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” may just as well speak to Christ’s existence dividing (as a sword would cut) people based on their belief, if not a faulty translation from the original Koine Greek. Psalm 144 in the Book of Psalms, another quoted portion of the Good Book, has been translated as, “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.”

This is context-dependent, however. David, in speaking of bodily strength, ascribes true strength to God, and prays to Him to rescue him and his people “from the cruel sword.” In this context, David is King of Israel at a time when war among rival groups is common, and what’s more, the ending of the psalm expresses a hope for peace. This seems like quite a departure from the rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which would have you believe in its promotional videos that America resembles a scene from The Purge. Lock ’em and load ’em, ladies and gents. Conflict is brewing, and nothing shouts His love like the cold steel of a .45.

Mark Lee’s pro-Trump comments seemed crazy at the time of first utterance, and a mere six months later, still do. As the Trump presidency wears on, though, at least until anything manifests with respect to impeachment or other means of removal, and as Donald Trump’s support from his base not only holds steady but grows, one wonders whether Aslan’s depiction of Trump as a salvific figure, as something more than an inspiration to those blinded by patriotism, is accurate. For white evangelicals who support him, in particular, Trump’s actions should prompt them to look critically at their set of beliefs and the importance of morality to their worldview. Whether or not the apparent abandonment of their principles holds beyond Trump’s presidency, meanwhile, is anyone’s guess, and is hard to approach with any sense of faith on the part of those who already don’t believe in him.

  Trump Is Not a Threat to a Free Press Despite Inflamed Rhetoric, Obama Administration & DNC’s Recent Lawsuit Much More Menacing

[sporadicstrangerunknown-blog]

What Is Theology? Demystifying A Scary Practice

Religious philosophy can appear like an unnerving word to a few people. For a few, this word brings out pictures of huge libraries and stuffy book partners sitting on the library floor perusing enormous volumes of work by the like Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics or H. Orton Wiley's three-volume Systematic Theology. For others, you picture a college or theological school where proficient ministers and future teachers go, yet returned to your neighborhood church with greater words and thoughts than you can represent on your kid's dialect expressions homework. Also, still for a few, the possibility of some teacher sitting in an ivory tower composing and plotting up some new and original thought simply attempting to make your life hopeless that is without a doubt unbiblical. Doubtlessly, it's not something for the unpracticed or youthful Christian, and it is extremely unlikely a typical individual who has been in the confidence a while, similar to you, would ever get a handle on or comprehend it, you scarcely get by on Sunday with the sermon and your commitments that don't generally enroll. For a large portion of you I'm certain you are quite recently befuddled with regards to this subject, I've presumably met somebody quite recently like you too in a comparative watercraft, and simply pondering what is religious philosophy in any case. It's a decent thing to ask. The way that you even ask it shows that you consider important your association with God, since this word and it's many branches of knowledge do come up in ways we are not generally mindful of. In this way, we should go on an adventure and ideally get you some clearness on the issue.

"Philosophy" is a term that has been utilized since the third century to signify "discussing God" or the "exploration of God." In and of itself, religious philosophy gets at the nature and relationship individuals have with God and what "god" intends to individuals. All things considered, "God" implies distinctive things to various individuals and to various religious conventions. To the Muslim it is talking about Allah and the lessons of the Quran and the four other blessed books of their Islamic confidence. To the Jew it is Jehovah/YHWH and the keeping of the Law. Both monotheistic conventions have confidence in one "God," yet what they accept about that "God" is immensely unique in relation to Christians. For polytheistic (numerous god) customs it could mean supporting one god to keep away from the fury of another. For the Deist, it could simply be basically about discovering general realities in all conventions and carrying on with an ethical life and going to paradise. Everybody accepts distinctive things and that basically is the thing that religious philosophy is and plans to examine. It is dialog about God or divine beings and the relationship that exists amongst us and them and us with others.

What Makes Theology Christian?

Christian philosophy is discussing God in Christian ways. Christians, consider their confidence. Christian confidence is about both a matter of reflection and a result of that reflection. It takes a gander at why we do the things we do and why. It considers why Protestants maintain a significance of the Scripture and Catholics take a gander at both Scripture and Tradition. To answer the inquiry then of what makes religious philosophy Christian, everything comes down to what we accept. One such case of this practically speaking is simply the different convictions about the Church.

For a few people the Christian Church should just be an assortment of devotees, while for others they trust it ought to be a blended gathering. There are surely different thoughts out there likewise on the issue. Christian religious philosophy however drives us to think in a systematic way about the key thoughts of our Christian confidence. Religious philosophy is, at any rate to extraordinary degree, scholarly reflection on the demonstration, substance, and ramifications of Christian confidence. It is utilized to at times help impart a comprehension of specific components of our Christian confidence asking things, for example,

• Where did these diverse methodologies originated from?

• What are the benefits of such an approach?

• What effect or contrast is made to the matter of Christian living?

Submitted Ideas of Theology

Christian religious philosophy is tied in with attempting to comprehend why the Christian Church is focused on thoughts that appear to be convoluted and, now and again, somewhat unlikely. When we take a gander at the subject of what is religious philosophy, we should seriously mull over such troublesome ideas about the relationship of Jesus Christ humankind and heavenliness. Christians attest that Jesus is both 100% human and 100% heavenly, yet some may inquire as to why say this when it is more straightforward to state that Jesus is really human. Another illustration is the matter of the Trinity. Why is God a Trinity, when it just appears to be less demanding to trust in God? Religious philosophy answers these difficulties and offers voice to what we accept, as well as why we trust it.

Does Theology Just Make Faith Unnecessarily Complicated?

While noting the topic of "what is religious philosophy" it is normal to hear an inquiry concerning religious philosophy making confidence superfluously muddled. Furthermore, I trust that worry is defended, yet to a degree. I regularly think that its supportive to recollect what Anselm of Canterbury said on the matter of philosophy, and that it is "confidence looking for comprehension."

As I said in segments above, Christianity considers its confidence. We make different claims about God and what we are educated and perused about God and the relationship we have with God. Be that as it may, we are additionally individuals who are interested and have questions, once in a while inquiries concerning separation and remarriage or newborn child immersion. Generally we say and affirm a certain something, however now we answer the why part of it. It would appear to be easy to simply say well the Bible says xyz in regards to separate, yet shouldn't something be said about sexual or psychological mistreatment that leads one to leave a marriage? It is safe to say that they are scripturally supported in leaving that marriage? The appropriate response on this issue gets more convoluted, in light of the fact that now logical components are required not simply from the Bible's instructing about marriage and separation, however it's lessons on savagery and the obligation of care life partners have to the marriage and how those societies in which the scriptural writers compose approaches and experienced things. Now and again, you have to take a gander at chronicled Christian and different works of that opportunity to realize what was happening and afterward approach the issue from an educated supposition with a set or reasons and suggestions. This is placing religious philosophy into training, it's a territory called Biblical Theology and that gets included with issues of hermeneutics and interpretation and different components of scriptural writing and study.

Another thought in noting the matter of this being entangled is that Christians do experience non-Christians. Once in a while non-Christians are occupied with the Christian confidence and find out about it. Maybe they are interested or not sure about what they accept. Maybe their folks never underscored the significance of religion growing up and they have an inclination that they are passing up a major opportunity. Or, on the other hand maybe you are in a school course debating secularism. Essentially expressing that "in light of the fact that the Bible says as much" wouldn't fly in these circumstances. Indeed, for the inquisitive or skeptic they may basically think and trust that Christians adore a book as opposed to an almighty God who really existed. They would require some foundation on why the Bible is critical and not simply a book or good lessons and adages. Religious philosophy offers individuals in these circumstances a clarification of Christian confidence and it enables individuals to comprehend why Christians contrast on specific purposes of significance, for example, sanctification by inundation or by sprinkling.

Maybe the most convincing reason with regards to the significance of religious philosophy and to do it regardless of the possibility that it appears to be confounded is the discipleship of the brain. Religious philosophy is the discipleship of the psyche. Deut. 6:1-24 and Matthew 22:37 both address the significance of our faith in God and living submissively, which happens to incorporate cherishing God and others with all our being. The Apostle Paul makes an interest to us in Romans 12:1-2 about the significance of the restoration and change of our psyche onto the things of God so we may revere God appropriately and take after God's will. When we participate in philosophy in the thought of the demonstration and being of our confidence we are getting a glance at the internal dynamic of an existence of confidence and its longing to comprehend what is accepted.

Different Benefits of Theology

Obviously, there are different parts of taking part in philosophy for the ordinary Christian. One such case is that it gives you a more profound individual advancement and valuation for one's confidence. Maybe the most energizing thing about Christian get-togethers and time I've gone through with different individuals from the group of God is in festivity and thought of thoughts for connecting with others for the Kingdom of God. We read and concentrate the Scripture and other Christian works or recordings for thoughts and bits of knowledge to help that procedure along and noting challenges. That is an engagement of religious philosophy.

Another advantage is that there has a tendency to be a kind of fervor that comes when one grapples with God. Augustine once shouted this general thought in saying that philosophy was and eros of the psyche. Anybody comfortable with Greek and the words for "adoration" or even acquainted with human closeness, will realize this is the place the term sexual originates from. Religious philosophy is a sensual impression that connects with us with our Creator. It is "a feeling of aching to see more about God's tendency and ways."

Also, ultimately, the most essential advantage of philosophy which I can consider is that it transformatively affects individuals' lives. This happens not simply to us by and by as we learn and develop, however it likewise is foundational to why we get things done. It's at the center of Christian effort and social administrations that are led in specific behavior. It is the reason the numerous nourishment banks out there are supported and kept running by Churches and Christian associations. It's tied in with saying that there is a God who adores others and calls us to be His hands and feet in a stinging and lost world.

Shutting Thoughts

I trust you've come to comprehend that replying "what is religious philosophy" is something critical to grapple with. Having this comprehension is foundational before we even attempt to draw in some other issue or talk on a