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.’”

  • btaf45@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.”

          • btaf45@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No, he used the word difficult.

            Initially. Then he realized he needed to be more blunt. So he gave a metaphor making it clear it was almost impossible, and even bluntly said “with man this is impossible”. The reaction of the disciples also prove it had nothing at all to do with any “gate”.

            23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

            24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

            25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

            26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Who then can be saved?

              They were astonished because, at the time, wealth was considered to be a sign of favor from God. Jesus’ statements at the time went directly against that, and that’s what surprised them. There was similar surprise at his statements that the meek and humble would inherit the earth and go to heaven.

              The scandal wasn’t that rich people in general probably wouldn’t go to heaven, but that seemingly righteous people wouldn’t go to heaven.

              Who then can be saved?

              With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

              I think he’s referring to salvation generally here. Man cannot save himself, so no amount of wealth will be helpful. God can save man, and he is the one that makes it possible.

              So whether it’s a gate or a literal needle isn’t really relevant, God controls who gets to heaven, and God’s expectations are at odds with people who love money. The message here is that wealth doesn’t indicate favor with God and it cannot save you, so you should focus on what can save you. You can have wealth and those attributes, but wealth attracts selfish people, and those selfish attributes will prevent you from entering heaven.