July 21, 2016

Some of the most disappointing Christian responses to something they should be thrilled about (edited)

(edited -  -added examples and info)

I honestly was all set up to be disappointed by Cruz last night, because the loyalty pledge he took was a foolhardy idea in the first place. Just like his misplaced trust in Boehner.    I honestly did not expect him to do what he did.   I expected him to buckle to the ridiculous legalism of the RNC, like every other politician eventually has done.  That was a line I would not want to have to walk.  But those are minor disappointments with Cruz, and he has publicly realized his misjudgments.  On the other hand, Trump and Hillary never admit their wrongs and go ahead and make such gaffes and misjudgments and tell outright lies with impunity daily.

The very thing that caused me to rejoice is the thing that everyone is flipping out about and condemning him for that one speck in Ted's eye, that speck he finally had removed. The fact that he refused to fulfill an evil oath.

When Christians cannot discern something so BLATANTLY obvious, it makes me really wonder whether they actually have faith at all.  I know I probably shouldn't feel that way, because everyone has blind spots. But hey we're all about honesty here aren't we?

There have been some real doozy Christian pharisees out there condemning this 'broken pledge.'
Yeah the Graham family wouldn't know ANYTHING about broken vows, would they...

Another guy here who regularly gets flak for not doing things the 'right way.'

Andrew Klavan, saying Ted made a "moral error" (in which case, then Jesus made moral errors too because he broke the sabbath, insulted the spiritual leaders, etc)  and comparing Ted Cruz's comments to Obama insulting the police and insinuating the police really are racists:

Here is one of the most disappointing and frankly ridiculous responses I saw last night from a Christian broadcaster who really ought to know better.

You can see that I responded to her a number of times if you're interested. She finally blocked me this morning. *yawn* well ok.  She apparently doesn't quite understand the fig leaf style block feature that twitter gives a person.

Seems to me she's still smarting from when she was unfairly attacked for the technicality of not following Matt 18 exposing Driscoll's plagiarism, while demonstrating that she is not above the same ability to attack people on such specious technicalities.  The hypocrisy  among the Christian broadcasting and 'discernment' set is indeed rampant. Too much time spent among the Evangelical Industrial Complex has the same effect as spending too much time in Washington DC. I wonder if she would be OK with a public and forced apology for having signed the pledge?

So here are an assortment of pretty priceless responses I saw though:

Walsh had some great ones last night.

Steve Berman at The Resurgent paints a pretty decent picture of Martin Luther and compares it pretty well to the political scene today. (Remember that church and state politics were not separate in the time of Luther, so there is every reason in the world to make this comparison, as well as the fact that people operate the same sinful way in church a lot of time as they do in the left hand kingdom.)

Source:Ted Cruz is a Heretic
Campaign manager Paul Manafort let Cruz know that if he didn’t change his speech and endorse Trump (which was not a requirement to speak), then Cruz would suffer consequences.

Erick reported that these consequences included: Being booed on the stage, being criticized by specific media and talk radio personalities, and having cover stories planted by the RNC to indicate that Cruz altered his speech. Cruz did not endorse Trump from the stage, and all of Manafort’s threats have come to pass.

Trump had the power to require an endorsement from Cruz as a condition of speaking. Instead of holding to that, Trump tried to trap Cruz into an endorsement against his own conscience, placing him in the same situation as Martin Luther: Recant or be cast as a heretic. Why would Trump do this? Why does he need Cruz’s endorsement in the first place?

He needs it because Cruz represents to Trump and the GOP what Martin Luther represented to the Catholic Church. Cruz said “don’t stay home in November.” He said “If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.”

What Trump and his supporters wanted from Cruz was an indulgence. His supporters wanted absolution for their candidate. They wanted to hear Cruz recant. They wanted their consciences assuaged for their support of Trump. Cruz did not offer that. He offered a defense of conservative principles, and the mores of the Republican Party. He attacked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. He urged people to vote. And Trump supporters booed him for it.

They were given instructions to boo if it appeared Cruz would not offer a by-name endorsement to Trump, which, again, was not a requirement for Cruz to speak. Cruz did his best to support his party, and stand on conscience. But he would not offer an indulgence.
Seems like some protestant Christians would rather go back to 1500s Rome.

I find only one reason to vote for Trump. To ensure that the mindless trumpons and fake Cruz supporters who cant wait to turn around and backstab him can find out what he really is. Like the whole Walton's scene about making kids smoke a whole package of cigarettes to teach them not to smoke.

But that's not really enough for me.