Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him ādonāt understandā their religion.
āIām going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,ā Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trumpās Christmas post. āIf you are a Christian who supports him you donāt understand your own religion.ā
Kinzinger, one of Trumpās fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that āTrump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he aināt a Christian and heās not āGodās man.āā
I donāt think so. Heās not saying they arenāt ātrueā Christians, an undefinable standard of "true. Heās saying they donāt understand it. Christ flipped the tables and whipped the money changers, these people worship a real estate speculator. Christās message is one of social welfare and commonwealth, conservative populists literally killed Jesus for blasphemy.
Like, heās right, they donāt understand it. I went to Christian Sunday school. There wasnāt one lesson about taking health insurance from poor people and charging interest on school lunch debt.
Iām not sure what distinction youāre trying to make. Heās saying these Christians donāt understand their religion, as in theyāre not following what he thinks Christianity is supposed to be. Thatās the very definition of the āno true Scotsmanā fallacy.
Youāre doing it too, honestly. What you learned in Sunday school doesnāt match how these republicans are interpreting it, so theyāre not following the real teachings.
Iām 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 whatās printed on the tin.
If we are going that road you could argue that much of the āChristian churchā has split pretty far from Christās actual teachings.
Sure. Or that the original teachings were all over the place to begin with, because itās 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 thatās what literally happened.
Eventually the Catholic and Anglican churches decided which books/teachings would be ācorrectā 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 Churchās official library has whatās 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 canāt agree over whose interpretation is correct, to the point of genocide. But yeah, one sect of evangelical Christianity is ārightā such that we should all be subjected to it.
Jesus wasnāt socialist, he literally said to leave to Caesar that which is Caesarās. 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 wasnāt until the Acts that we start to talk about the āchurchā and any kind of centralization. He said, āfollow me,ā not āorganize yourselves into communes.ā
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.
Nope. He never once said ādonāt rely on governmentā. 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 ābread and circusesā. The reason he didnāt 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 Yahwehās coercion in place of government coercion.
No, he said give Caesar his taxes because thatās a moral and legal obligation. Hereās the NIV translation, which makes it clear (Mark 12:15-18):
Nowhere in that exchange did he mention what it would be used for, just that itās Caesarās and he deserves it back. Thatās it, thatās the only mention he made of the government, and he mentions the current leader, not the state itself (e.g. he couldāve said āRomeā instead of āCaesarā if he wanted to make commentary about the government).
And later in that same chapter, he talks about the offering of the widow:
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.
Thatās a constant theme throughout the New Testament, especially in the gospels. When Jesus healed people, he didnāt 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 thatās why Iām disgusted with many modern Christians, they like to donate large amounts for recognition instead of quietly giving like Jesus did. Theyāre 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.
Nope. Julius Caesar was long dead by this time. Tiberius was the emperor when Jesus lived. After before him, Augustus.
These arenāt gifts because there is coercion involved that is far greater than government coercion. If you donāt 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 Yahwehās coercion.
You made this part up. Again. He didnāt say anything about obligations to governments, except that you should pay your taxes.
Starting with Tiberius, Roman emperors gave their heirs the name āCaesar,ā such that āCaesarā came to be known as the term used for the emperor or his heir (i.e. itās the root of kaiser in German, tsar in Russia, āqaysarā in the Ottoman Empire). Tiberius wasnāt born with the name and adopted it later, and took the honorific āAugustusā when he took the throne. So āCaesar Augustusā was the emperor, and āCaesarā was either the emperor (shorthand) or the heir. Itās kind of like a mix between family name and title, so āCaesarā 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 thatās why I understand āCaesarā in this context as whoever the ruling dictator is, not the government or society as a whole. This isnāt an admonition to act in the greater good, but to show obedience to those in charge, which is a theme Iāll get back to later.
Jesus never says this. The only thing thatās close is the āeye of a needleā allegory, and the intention seems to communicate that itās incredibly difficult, though not impossible. He has been more explicit about hard requirements elsewhere:
Matthew 5:20
John 3:3,16
John 3:16
So Jesus hasnāt hesitated to use direct language, so it doesnāt make sense to take this as āitās impossible.ā In fact, just before the āeye of a needleā allegory, he says itās merely difficult.
Mark 10:20-23
So itās not the money itself thatās the problem, but the love of money. Youāre not going to hell because you have a lot of money, youāre going to hell because you love it more than God, who has been explicit in whatās most important.
Matthew 22:36-40
A wealthy person should feel obligated to help their fellow man because thatās what God would do. But the actual law is to love God and your fellow man with all your heart, and thatās 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.
His Apostles did, such as Paul:
Romans 13:1-7
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 hereās how Jesus expects leaders to rule:
Matthew 20:25-28
So you must obey your leaders, and Jesus expects to leaders to serve those they lead. In that way everyone serves each other, but thereās also order.
Edit: couldnāt get the spoiler block to behave, so I canāt hide all the noisy verses.
Why did you supply all those quotes that were irrelevant?
The emperor was the āAugustusā. āCaesarā was the heir. Either way it makes my point. It was talking about the government, not a specific person.
It means that it is almost impossible for ārichā 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 donāt go to hell.
I couldnāt 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 wouldāve said so, but instead he said itās ādifficult.ā Thatās an important distinction and shows that the root of the problem isnāt 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.
No, āCaesarā was the family name of the ruling family, as in the dynasty name. After Tiberius, the ruler was usually named āCaesar Augustus,ā with āAugustusā being an honorific, much like āthe honorable.ā
So āCaesarā was likely commonly used to refer to the ruling family, much like we might say āthe Bidensā in the US. So Jesus was simply saying, āgive to the ruler that which is the rulerās,ā not āpay your taxes so you can help you fellow man.ā 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.
Exactly (though itās not your place to judge, thatās Godās job). Itās not the money thatās the issue here, the issue is prioritizing worldly things over God.
If we use the gate example (again, thatās in question by experts), the idea is that to get through the gate, the camel needs to leave behind its baggage, because otherwise itās too tall to fit. A wealthy person needs to be willing to leave all their wealth behind you be with God, and thatās less likely because of the way most people get their wealth. Iām not saying thatās 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 heās willing to give up everything to follow Jesus, he wouldāve compared him to Job or something as a good example of what one āshouldā 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 thatās 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 Godās and follow his example. Thatās it.
He didnāt say itās merely ādifficultā. He essentually said it is almost impossible. That doesnāt mean only 1 in every 5 rich people can go to heaven. That means 1 in every 5000 or 1 in every 50000.
Nope. Not a dynasty name. It was the name of the heir to the throne. But yes āCaesarā was symbolic of the government itself.
You are mixing up socialism and communism. Fair enough, Jesus wasnāt 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 youāve completely misunderstood the meaning of any kind of socialism.
Jesus wouldāve 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. Thatās 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, heās a libertarian who is morally opposed to personal ownership, but also opposed to forceful removal of ownership. Heād rather live destitute than force others to share, because this life is ephemeral and true rewards are in heaven.
No, Trump is not a socialist, heās 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 didnāt want recognition, he just wanted to do good and set a good example. Thatās 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 doesnāt 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):
Trump worships himself, Jesus calls others to worship his father.