:clap:
:brow:

They call themselves Christians but really it's a degenerate form of Christianity. — Wayfarer

Maybe? Watch for generalization across conspiracy theorists. And the "no true Christian" thing. Well, the QAnon'ers are goners anyway.

Going back to that Ben Sasse article that started this discussion:

In 1922, G. K. Chesterton called America “a nation with the soul of a church.” But according to a recent study of dozens of countries, none has ditched religious belief faster since 2007 than the U.S. Without going into the causes, we can at least acknowledge one cost: For generations, most Americans understood themselves as children of a loving God, and all had a role to play in loving their neighbors. But today, many Americans have no role in any common story.

Conspiracy theories are a substitute. Support Donald Trump and you are not merely participating in a mundane political process—that’s boring. Rather, you are waging war on a global sex-trafficking conspiracy! No one should be surprised that QAnon has found a partner in the empty, hypocritical, made-for-TV deviant strain of evangelicalism that runs on dopey apocalypse-mongering. (I still consider myself an evangelical, even though so many of my nominal co-religionists have emptied the term of all historic and theological meaning.) A conspiracy theory offers its devotees a way of inserting themselves into a cosmic battle pitting good against evil. This sense of vocation that makes it dangerous is also precisely what makes it attractive

It's been shocking to see how many purported 'Christians' have gone about wailing for Trump, as if he's a prophet, when he's obviously such a phony, not to mention a liar and obvious narcissist. But then, some Christian media have railed against them, as in this article from the 7th January https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/january-web-only/trump-capitol-mob-election-politics-magi-not-maga.html

, sure. I just meant that conspiracy theories haven't replaced Christianity. Rather, going by evidence, it seems more like Christians have been more prone to running with conspiracy theories.

Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories. — Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds (2014)

Related anecdote: I was raised in a very loosely religious family, and exposed at a young age to Christian original fiction that seemed to me just like any other fantasy literature, equally real or unreal... and as I grew up and outgrew Santa Claus, etc, I shifted all the religious stories into that same category of well-meaning “lies for children”, metaphorical fictions for pedagogical purposes... and then was shocked to realize by my adolescence that so many adults actually believed that these fantasy stories were real.

I'm sure there are many that are, because of their willingness to believe. That's a drawback about doxastic religion (i.e. religion based on belief). It makes people very susceptible to manipulation. Which is arguably what the mainstream model of belief was intended to do in the first place.

, there have been other..movements/trends as well. :sad:

Holy Hate: The Far Right’s Radicalization of Religion (2018)

Accompanied by a hyperbolic "red scare"...

right. You know, there is also a 'religious left'. They don't make nearly as much noise, they're usually busy helping out.

For generations, most Americans understood themselves as children of a loving God, and all had a role to play in loving their neighbors. But today, many Americans have no role in any common story.

This is how Sasse explains the "bad" Republicans and Trumpists, you see. The members of the Republican Party and others accept Trumpism (I like "Trumpery" myself) and wacky conspiracy theories because Americans no longer understand themselves as "children of a loving God" and no longer see themselves as having "a role to play in loving their neighbors."

But when, I wonder, and how often have we (or American Christians generally, as it's clear enough he refers to the loving God of Christianity) actually "played" such a role? Was the Capitol building attacked, and do conspiracy theories abound, because we no longer love our neighbors, or no longer "see" ourselves as doing so? It can't reasonably be claimed we ever loved our neighbors except in odd moments, no matter how many times we may have thought or said we did or should.

If you look at the charity organizations in your community, like the ones that run thrift shops and soup kitchens, you'll probably find that most of them are Christian organizations. I'm not a Christian, but that 'love your neighbor' actually is a thing.

If you look at the charity organizations in your community, like the ones that run thrift shops and soup kitchens, you'll probably find that most of them are Christian organizations. I'm not a Christian, but that 'love your neighbor' actually is a thing. — frank

I suspect Sasse wasn't referring to these charities when he opined regarding Americans no longer believing as he thinks we did once. If he was, though, then it seems he is wrong. Because in that case what happened, and is happening takes place despite the fact that Americans still believe themselves to be children of a loving (Christian) God, and love their neighbors and see themselves as having a role in lovin their neighbors.

But my guess is that Sasse, like me, doesn't think these charities are representative of American society at large. If they were, it's likely they wouldn't be needed.

If you look at the charity organizations in your community, like the ones that run thrift shops and soup kitchens, you'll probably find that most of them are Christian organizations. I'm not a Christian, but that 'love your neighbor' actually is a thing. — frank

Charity is a complicated notion in contemporary society. Prior to the secularization of society, charity was mandatory. It was a commandment, not just a recommendation. Once theocracies ended, so did mandatory charitable contributions. What we now have in terms of mandatory contributions are not "charitable" (as that term is currently defined), but they appear in the form of taxation and enforced income redistribution.

When someone suggests that charity is distinct from taxation because charity is from the heart, it is voluntary, and that it arises from a feeling you are to love your neighbor, they are speaking not from a theological perspective, but they are simply identifying an interesting historical development, namely that religious mandates are no longer mandated now that that the state has usurped their historical power.

Theologically speaking, what makes this even more complicated is the Protestant abandonment of good acts for salvation. That leaves Protestants without a specific reason for loving one's neighbor other than it is a trait of Jesus one might wish to emulate. What is clear though is that the eternal reward of heaven is not made any more likely regardless of how much love one expresses for one's neighbor. Salvation is gained through faith alone, despite whatever sort of love or evil you impart on the world.

My point is that you have casted a soup kitchen as being an example of loving one's neighbor, but you don't make the same comment when you see free and reduced lunches at public school. The reason for that I'd suggest is because the former is voluntary, but voluntariness really has no role in determining morality, love, caring, or even in assuring oneself a spot in heaven. Voluntariness simply describes that amount of charity people give beyond what is required by law. If we wish to judge the morality of the charitable, we can either judge them on the basis of how much they actually give or we can judge them on the basis on how much they think ought be required to give.

Once theocracies ended, so did mandatory charitable contributions. What we now have in terms of mandatory contributions are not "charitable" (as that term is currently defined), but they appear in the form of taxation and enforced income redistribution. — Hanover

The US started taking the role of protector of labor and the poor during the Progressive Era, whose star was hardcore Presbyterian Woodrow Wilson, but I think your point is that we don't know if Wilson actually loved children when he backed laws against child labor. Since he was guided by his Christian faith, he might have just done it because he felt like God was commanding that he be a freakin do-gooder. I guess that's true.

Theologically speaking, what makes this even more complicated is the Protestant abandonment of good acts for salvation. — Hanover

Are you talking about Calvinism? For Calvinists, good acts don't lead to salvation, but you still do good acts every day "for the glory of God", whatever that means.

Salvation is gained through faith alone, despite whatever sort of love or evil you impart on the world. — Hanover

This is Baptists.

Madness on display:

Revising God's Prophecy! (16m:47s youtube)



Greg Locke has substance-free demagoguery nailed to a T. Sid Roth laughs in tongues, too. :D

Do not pay attention to the news, to the headlines, to the reports — Hank Kunneman Prophecy (Omaha, NE)

And there are people following just that — "lying left media", "news in the pocket of evil socialists", "'they' suppress or censor opposing views", ... And so a problem emerges. Problems. Popularization of "free" "alternate" (and extremist) "information" sources, isolation, echo chambers, mis-dis-trust, ... QAnon is more of the same madness.

The Bill of Rights grants freedom to such stuff, and maybe that's fine, after all, it equally allows those "Holy Koolaid" people freedom to expose the madness. A minimum of generally available, mandatory/expected education (and skills in critical inquiry) might be better. That takes resources, though.

This is Baptists. — frank

This is Protestantism generally. Salvation by faith alone is a central tenant of Martin Luther's protest against Catholicism.

You said, "Salvation is gained through faith alone, despite whatever sort of love or evil you impart on the world."

Lutherans believe faith and works go hand in hand, works doing the job of expressing faith. It's just that salvation is a result of faith, not the accompanying works.

Baptists believe that as well because that's pretty clearly explained by Paul and Baptists pride themselves in their knowledge of the Bible. Their strong emphasis on God's forgiveness has given them the reputation of being overly forgiving of themselves, though.

Lutherans believe faith and works go hand in hand, works doing the job of expressing faith. It's just that salvation is a result of faith, not the accompanying works. — frank

Not sure we're disagreeing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

The murderer who accepts Jesus as his savior on his death bed goes to heaven, but the nonbeliever who had led the saintly life sees eternal damnation.

Brian Sicknick 1978-2021
Capitol Hill Police Officer murdered by a mob of MAGA-QAnon insurrectionists while tr45h enthusiastically watched from the WH

https://www.themarysue.com/fox-news-ignores-officer-sicknick-memorial/

Liz Cheney kept her leadership position in the Republican Party 145-61. It was a secret ballot. If it were not, I bet it would have been a very different result.

Seems like the GOP isn't in the mood to kick people out: both Liz and the Q-anon woman didn't get punished from their own party.

Cheney doesn’t deserve punishment. Greene deserves expulsion. It’s the fact that this isn’t obvious that’ the worry.

How the GOP manages to wiggle out of the influence of Trump is obvious.

Let the media and the democrats attack Greene, let Cheney and the other ten Republicans in the House that went for impeachment simply be and see if Kinziger gets support. Now it ought to be crystal clear what a disaster Trump was, but his voters are their supporters. At least in a way. Avoid at all costs the party fracturing. Trump simply hasn't got the leadership and organizational abilities to create a new party. And the ban from Twitter shows just how totally inept this guy is to reach his followers when his smartphone is "taken away".

As time goes, the democrats will go to excesses in their disdain and simply start to annoy all Republicans. Likely the voters in general will be disappointed at the Biden administration, if Covid-19 doesn't go away and the economy stays as bad as it is. At that time people like Liz Cheney and Kinziger can start themselves calling that enough is enough and we will, hopefully, have normal mid-terms.

In short, the GOP can take example from the Democrats on how to deal with their annoying but eager and important supporters called the "progressives" or "democratic socialists". The DNC never kicks these buffoons out, but gives them enough crumbs that they stay in the party and here Bernie tows the party line extremely well. Bernie gets the young and the radicals all excited, but always tows the party line. The GOP handled the tea-party crowd extremely well in a similar manner. The Trump crowd is different and problematic (to say the least), but still quite malleable.

That's of course assuming that the goal for the republicans is a return to relative "normalcy", with power switching hands between two parties at regular intervals.

Another way to read the events is that the GOP not trying to slowly ease out Trimpism, but instead slowly ease out the traditional idea of the conservative, as a way to deal with the ever dwindling number of these kinds of voters.

That's of course assuming that the goal for the republicans is a return to relative "normalcy", with power switching hands between two parties at regular intervals. — Echarmion

Well, this symbiosis with the DNC has worked for them very well. The last thing the DNC and the GOP want is their duopoly on political power to be broken and a viable third party would emerge.

Another way to read the events is that the GOP not trying to slowly ease out Trumpism, but instead slowly ease out the traditional idea of the conservative, as a way to deal with the ever dwindling number of these kinds of voters. — Echarmion

What is obvious is that there's a power struggle going on inside the GOP. For example, the Lincoln Project didn't cease it's adds once the election is over, but is attacking one side of the GOP.


If it would have been the loss of the Presidency and both houses in Congress, the GOP may have gone as business as usual. But January 6th happened as the final crash with an explosion of the Trump train wreck leaving things so much in shatters, that they do have to think about this shit.

This story is quite enlightening and getting a lot of traction. It turns out that there was a vast anti-Trump conspiracy to rig the election.

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

True to form, the anti-Trumpers justify their actions by repeating glittering generalities about “democracy” and convincing themselves their actions would save America from some dire future. It’s a racket, of course. But shadow campaigns, vast sums of dark money, altering election laws, war games, colluding with corporations, big tech and the press to steer information doesn’t seem to me to represent the spirit of democracy.

This story is quite enlightening and getting a lot of traction. It turns out that there was a vast anti-Trump conspiracy to rig the election. — NOS4A2

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. — Time

The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding. — Time

I suppose it's anti Trump to insist on fair elections... :rofl:

It turns out that there was a vast anti-Trump conspiracy to rig the election. — NOS4A2

There was. It involved getting a buttload of sane people to the polls.

It worked!!!

One can say the same of any form of influence. But in this case dark money, corporate interest and media collusion pushed they finger on the scale. “Hey, it worked” isn’t a great answer.

The election is over. It wasn't "rigged". That was and is a deliberate lie to undermine democracy and elevate the shitbag known as Donald Trump. Anyone who repeats it is no less a shitbag. The free and fair election is over and the shitbag lost freely and fairly. So endeth the road and so endeth the thread.

(NOS, you can go do your thing on the Biden thread.)