Kinzinger says Christians who back Trump ‘don’t understand’ their religion
Kinzinger says Christians who back Trump ‘don’t understand’ their religion
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him “don’t understand” their religion. “I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is …
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him “don’t understand” their religion.
“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”
Kinzinger, one of Trump’s fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that “Trump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he ain’t a Christian and he’s not ‘God’s man.’”
You're viewing a single thread.
He’s not wrong, but this is honestly the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
The bible does technically say you should treat your fellows as you would want to be treated and promotes brotherhood, but it also says women and other races are inferior and advocates for truly heinous behaviour. Cherry picking has always been the point, and shitloads of crimes against humanity have been officially sanctioned by the church.
There’s a very good reason the founders these people claim to venerate wanted the church and state to be separate. They were deists, but not overt Christians, and they’d seen what happens when religion mingles with government: horrible, horrible things.
I don't think so. He's not saying they aren't "true" Christians, an undefinable standard of "true. He's saying they don't understand it. Christ flipped the tables and whipped the money changers, these people worship a real estate speculator. Christ's message is one of social welfare and commonwealth, conservative populists literally killed Jesus for blasphemy.
Like, he's right, they don't understand it. I went to Christian Sunday school. There wasn't one lesson about taking health insurance from poor people and charging interest on school lunch debt.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make. He’s saying these Christians don’t understand their religion, as in they’re not following what he thinks Christianity is supposed to be. That’s the very definition of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
You’re doing it too, honestly. What you learned in Sunday school doesn’t match how these republicans are interpreting it, so they’re not following the real teachings.
I’m saying you can look through the history of the official stances of the Christian church and find many, many examples of sanctioned atrocities. You may not like it, but Christianity has never been what’s printed on the tin.
If we are going that road you could argue that much of the "Christian church" has split pretty far from Christ's actual teachings.
Sure. Or that the original teachings were all over the place to begin with, because it’s an amalgamation of various regional beliefs and stories meant to gain political and social control over areas it spread to, adopting and bastardising random beliefs it encountered. Because that’s what literally happened.
Eventually the Catholic and Anglican churches decided which books/teachings would be ‘correct’ based on what whomever was in charge at the time wanted. There are many books that were included or excluded from the bible because they were convenient or inconvenient, and the end result was a weird, inconsistent mess. The Catholic Church’s official library has what’s now considered banned texts that were official canon a few centuries ago. What changed that made them wrong? Politics.
And of course the three major Abrahamic religions can’t agree over whose interpretation is correct, to the point of genocide. But yeah, one sect of evangelical Christianity is ‘right’ such that we should all be subjected to it.
Jesus wasn't socialist, he literally said to leave to Caesar that which is Caesar's. He wanted to part of government, and instead pointed people to the government of heaven.
His message was for individuals to choose to help the poor on their own, not to use the government to force everyone to help the poor. The message was always about the individual, not the group, and it wasn't until the Acts that we start to talk about the "church" and any kind of centralization. He said, "follow me," not "organize yourselves into communes."
So no, I absolutely do not think Jesus was a socialist, he was the polar opposite of Trump. He shared a message of tolerance, love, and personal improvement, whereas Trump shares a message of intolerance, hate, and blaming others for your problems.
His message was for individuals to choose to help the poor on their own, not to use the government to force everyone to help the poor.
Nope. He never once said "don't rely on government". You made that part up. He said give Caesar his taxes, knowing that those taxes will go to pay for free food and entertainment for the public "bread and circuses". The reason he didn't talk more about government is because his country was under the equivalent of foreign military occupation and all the decisions were made in a distant capital of which he would have had zero influence. His message was for everyone to do everything they can to help the poor, and in particular for rich people to redistribute their wealth to the poor. And only if they did that would rich people be eligible for heaven. Jesus used Yahweh's coercion in place of government coercion.
No, he said give Caesar his taxes because that's a moral and legal obligation. Here's the NIV translation, which makes it clear (Mark 12:15-18):
... Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
Nowhere in that exchange did he mention what it would be used for, just that it's Caesar's and he deserves it back. That's it, that's the only mention he made of the government, and he mentions the current leader, not the state itself (e.g. he could've said "Rome" instead of "Caesar" if he wanted to make commentary about the government).
And later in that same chapter, he talks about the offering of the widow:
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
He obviously cares far more about the gifts to God than the taxes paid to the government, so the whole point of the exchange was to highlight that gifts to God are more important than obligations to governments.
You can also look at the rich man that came to Jesus asking what he lacked (the camel through the eye of the needle thing), and the advice was to give to the poor and follow Jesus, not to become a philanthropist and lift the poor out of poverty. The gift God cares most about is humility and meekness, so giving to the poor was never the point, the point was to eliminate worldly desires to serve God.
That's a constant theme throughout the New Testament, especially in the gospels. When Jesus healed people, he didn't do it to ease their suffering, he did it to give them a chance to repent and serve God. Every time he did so, he admonished them to repent and sin no more. The focus is always on the next life and serving God, not on this life.
And that's why I'm disgusted with many modern Christians, they like to donate large amounts for recognition instead of quietly giving like Jesus did. They're like those people in the temple giving large amounts, not the poor widow who gave the only pennies she had. Your gift to others should be live and compassion, trying to amass wealth to give more to the poor misses the point.
and he mentions the current leader, not the state itself (e.g. he could’ve said “Rome” instead of “Caesar” if he wanted to make commentary about the government).
Nope. Julius Caesar was long dead by this time. Tiberius was the emperor when Jesus lived. After before him, Augustus.
He obviously cares far more about the gifts to God than the taxes paid to the government
These aren't gifts because there is coercion involved that is far greater than government coercion. If you don't redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured forever by the devil. Anything the government can do to you pales in comparison to Yahweh's coercion.
are more important than obligations to governments.
You made this part up. Again. He didn't say anything about obligations to governments, except that you should pay your taxes.
Caesar
Starting with Tiberius, Roman emperors gave their heirs the name "Caesar," such that "Caesar" came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir (i.e. it's the root of kaiser in German, tsar in Russia, "qaysar" in the Ottoman Empire). Tiberius wasn't born with the name and adopted it later, and took the honorific "Augustus" when he took the throne. So "Caesar Augustus" was the emperor, and "Caesar" was either the emperor (shorthand) or the heir. It's kind of like a mix between family name and title, so "Caesar" can refer to any of the line of dictators following Julius Caesar, or it can refer to the title of the emperor or his heir.
So that's why I understand "Caesar" in this context as whoever the ruling dictator is, not the government or society as a whole. This isn't an admonition to act in the greater good, but to show obedience to those in charge, which is a theme I'll get back to later.
If you don't redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured by the devil.
Jesus never says this. The only thing that's close is the "eye of a needle" allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that it's incredibly difficult, though not impossible. He has been more explicit about hard requirements elsewhere:
Matthew 5:20
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
John 3:3,16
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
So Jesus hasn't hesitated to use direct language, so it doesn't make sense to take this as "it's impossible." In fact, just before the "eye of a needle" allegory, he says it's merely difficult.
Mark 10:20-23
And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.”
And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
So it's not the money itself that's the problem, but the love of money. You're not going to hell because you have a lot of money, you're going to hell because you love it more than God, who has been explicit in what's most important.
Matthew 22:36-40
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
A wealthy person should feel obligated to help their fellow man because that's what God would do. But the actual law is to love God and your fellow man with all your heart, and that's possible while having a lot of wealth, just incredibly unlikely because most with wealth get it by being selfish.
In short, if you feel God wants you to give everything away, you should not hesitate to do it, and that hesitation is what damned the rich young man, despite being otherwise righteous.
He didn't say anything about obligations to governments
His Apostles did, such as Paul:
Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Jesus taught obedience consistently, and the Apostles taught what Jesus taught, so I see this as a retelling of what Jesus taught, not something new Paul came up with.
So to me, the message is very clear, Jesus and God expect obedience, both to earthly rulers as well as heavenly ones. And here's how Jesus expects leaders to rule:
Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
So you must obey your leaders, and Jesus expects to leaders to serve those they lead. In that way everyone serves each other, but there's also order.
Edit: couldn't get the spoiler block to behave, so I can't hide all the noisy verses.
Why did you supply all those quotes that were irrelevant?
Roman emperors gave their heirs the name “Caesar,” such that “Caesar” came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir
The emperor was the "Augustus". "Caesar" was the heir. Either way it makes my point. It was talking about the government, not a specific person.
If you don’t redistribute your wealth to the poor, you are going to be tortured by the devil. Jesus never says this. The only thing that’s close is the “eye of a needle” allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that it’s incredibly difficult, though not impossible.
It means that it is almost impossible for "rich" men to go to heaven. Like one in a million. George Bush? Hell. Carly Fiorina? Hell. Betsy Devos? Hell. None of those people have anywhere near the humility and meekness to be the one in a million rich people who don't go to hell.
Why did you supply all those quotes
I couldn't get the spoiler tag to work properly, and my intention was to establish cases where Jesus was explicit about requirements to establish how language is used.
If Jesus meant being wealthy would disqualify you from heaven, he would've said so, but instead he said it's "difficult." That's an important distinction and shows that the root of the problem isn't the money itself (else why would Job have received so many riches after his trial?). The thing that disqualifies you is loving material things more than God, not having the material things.
The emperor was "Augustus". "Caesar" was the heir.
No, "Caesar" was the family name of the ruling family, as in the dynasty name. After Tiberius, the ruler was usually named "Caesar Augustus," with "Augustus" being an honorific, much like "the honorable."
So "Caesar" was likely commonly used to refer to the ruling family, much like we might say "the Bidens" in the US. So Jesus was simply saying, "give to the ruler that which is the ruler's," not "pay your taxes so you can help you fellow man." Paying taxes was a moral obligation to promote social order, giving to God was a moral obligation to show obedience and love for God. If anything, the money given to the temple was used for more good than taxes.
None of those people have anywhere near the humility or meekness
Exactly (though it's not your place to judge, that's God's job). It's not the money that's the issue here, the issue is prioritizing worldly things over God.
If we use the gate example (again, that's in question by experts), the idea is that to get through the gate, the camel needs to leave behind its baggage, because otherwise it's too tall to fit. A wealthy person needs to be willing to leave all their wealth behind you be with God, and that's less likely because of the way most people get their wealth. I'm not saying that's what Jesus meant, but it does have a lot of merit and fits nicely with the rest of his message.
If the young man said he's willing to give up everything to follow Jesus, he would've compared him to Job or something as a good example of what one "should" do. Worldly wealth and status are irrelevant to God, and he should be the one we want to impress, and we do that by aligning our will with his (e.g. he wants to see suffering alleviated, sinners repent, etc).
And that's my entire point here. Nothing Jesus said indicates what form of government we should have, his message was for individuals to align their will with God's and follow his example. That's it.
but instead he said it’s “difficult.”
He didn't say it's merely "difficult". He essentually said it is almost impossible. That doesn't mean only 1 in every 5 rich people can go to heaven. That means 1 in every 5000 or 1 in every 50000.
No, “Caesar” was the family name of the ruling family, as in the dynasty name.
Nope. Not a dynasty name. It was the name of the heir to the throne. But yes "Caesar" was symbolic of the government itself.
almost impossible
No, he used the word difficult.
From what I understand, the wisdom at the time was that money was an indicator of favor from God, and Jesus went against that. However, I don't think he meant that money was the issue, but merely a symptom of interests not aligned with God's. Many wealthy people care more about their wealth and fame than God or those around them.
Not a dynasty name
If you just said "Augustus," people would think of Octavian, not the current emperor, so "Caesar Augustus" would've been used to uniquely refer to the emperor. After Tiberius, emperors typically had both titles, and the heir apparent just had "a Caesar," so it acted as a dynastic name, even if the heir wasn't a blood relation (e.g. Tiberius himself was adopted). So both the emperor and heir held the title "Caesar" and only the emperor also held the title "Augustus."
It seems odd for Jesus to be referring to the heir apparent here, he would be referring to the emperor. To add to it, Julius Caesar was deified, so "Caesar" here likely has a double meaning to show the difference between a self-proclaimed god and the true God. He's not saying you should pay taxes to benefit others, he's saying you should pay taxes because that's your legal obligation.
And yes, "Caesar" was symbolic, but I'd assume most would refer to the government as "Rome," not "Caesar."
You are mixing up socialism and communism. Fair enough, Jesus wasn't a socialist, because he lived millennia before that particular political stance was coined, but the examples you give kind of actually support the argument that he would have been a socialist if he lived today/he espoused an early type of socialism. Paying taxes, helping the poor, individual responsibility; these are all things a modern day socialist would support. Organising into communes - not so much.
Also, it seems you are suggesting Donald Trump is a socialist? If so you've completely misunderstood the meaning of any kind of socialism.Jesus would've been closer to communist, which is a stateless society based on communal ownership. He asked how followers to eliminate personal possessions and follow him, presumably subsisting on the charity of others. That's the spirit of communism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is democratic ownership of the means of production. Jesus wanted no part in ownership of anything, much less socializing ownership of communal goods. He believed in following the law, but only so far as his legal and moral obligation went. He never discussed setting up poor houses, redistribution of wealth, or anything a socialist might push for, he instead urged his followers to follow his example in helping the poor.
If we have to ascribe a political philosophy, he's a libertarian who is morally opposed to personal ownership, but also opposed to forceful removal of ownership. He'd rather live destitute than force others to share, because this life is ephemeral and true rewards are in heaven.
Trump
No, Trump is not a socialist, he's a narcissist. He would support a socialist policy if it meant he could get recognition for it (see COVID checks, which he insisted bear his name).
Jesus, on the other hand, told people to not tell others he healed them (Luke 5:12-14). Jesus didn't want recognition, he just wanted to do good and set a good example. That's the sense that Trump is the opposite of Jesus, not wrt policy, but the examples they each set.
And yeah, Trump would be a socialist if he thought that would get him into power. He doesn't really care about policy, he cares about fame and money, and money only because it buys fame. Jesus rejected both from Satan (Matthew 4:1-11, esp verses 8-10):
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”
Trump worships himself, Jesus calls others to worship his father.
It's "no true Scotsman" if the person were waving an English flag, pissing on a set of bagpipes, and loudly proclaiming that Scottish people are useful idiots who will eat whatever bullshit you feed them.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious, but in case you are, these definitions may help:
No true Scotsman fallacy: No true Scotsman fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when one tries to define a term or group in a way that excludes certain counterexamples by arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument.
metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
Yes, except the example here is someone who very clearly does NOT fit in the group. It's basically saying Donald Trump isn't a real Christian, not because of some arbitrary definition of what it means to be Christian, but because he is literally not a real Christian. No True Scotsman doesn't apply here because the subject is as far removed from a Scotsman as a squirrel living in Japan is.
Obviously Trump is not a Christian. That’s not the bit I’m referring to.
I mean the bit where he’s talking about people who follow trump and who call themselves Christian. Literally no true Scotsman. They 100% think they’re Christian, and they have just as much a claim on the title as anyone.
eta: relevant quote:
“I’m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,” Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trump’s Christmas post. “If you are a Christian who supports him you don’t understand your own religion.”.
e: and if you think they can’t be logically correct in squaring their devout Christianity with their support of Trump, they’ve got several ‘imperfect vessel’ bible quotes for you.
You are assuming though that Kinzinger is...
arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument
..., which he is not doing. He's using the definition as defined by Jesus.
Or, as @agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com puts it ...
Jesus would not recognize modern Christians by almost any measure
I’m not assuming, I’m asserting that those gospels are heavily edited and censored by the church, so who really knows what the original intent was?
Leaving aside that the KJV that most Christians learn is filtered, sometimes erroneously, through multiple language translations, several of the original texts were cut from fairly recent editions because they contradict other texts or were morally problematic.
Claiming authority on what Jesus did or didn’t mean when referring to people who believe just as strongly they’re right is a fallacy, especially when, given the context of many other horrible teachings the bible espouses, it’s morally dubious at best. And those same texts have been used by church officials who should be authorities on the topic to justify atrocities.
So yeah, this is a fallacy.
I’m not assuming, I’m asserting that those gospels are heavily edited and censored by the church, so who really knows what the original intent was?
That's one hell of a debate catch-all escape hatch you've got there.
If you're arguing that what we've all been told about Jesus's intent and teachings are not true, then that's a completely different discussion to be had, and we're wasting our time discussing this current subject.
It’s not a debate catch-all, it’s just the truth.
My point is and has been that Christians who say other Christians are Christianing wrong are using a fallacy, because it’s just as valid that they think you are doing it wrong, and everyone on all sides can find bible quotes that support their views.
A hundred years ago, white supremacists used Jesus’ teachings to validate slavery, and they thought they were just as correct as you think you are. You can say they were using those passages erroneously, but they’d say the same about you with equal conviction and, looking at it from the outside, you’re both right.
Claiming authority on what Jesus did or didn’t mean when referring to people who believe just as strongly they’re right is a fallacy,
Not when there is an entire book explaining the ideology of Jesus. Ignoring everything it says proves they haven't read it which proves Kinzinger right.
by arbitrarily changing the definition to fit their argument.
I don't think he was doing that though, but instead was stating that what Jesus says is Christianity is different than what today's people say Christianity is, via by how they actually act, as "Christians". In other words, Jesus practiced Christianity different than today's Christians.
Or are people not allowed to say to someone else that they do not act in the way that the group they are in says they should act?
Sure, they’re allowed. I’ve spoken to loads of them (where I live, I’m surrounded), and they fully believe people like Kinsinger are the ones not following those teachings.
My point is when a belief system is so subjective and abused – even by the church itself – it’s the Spider-Man pointing meme.