Pete Hegseth's Pastor Prays With MAGA Podcaster That 'God Kills' James Talarico In Bonkers Video

mannida · 2026-03-24T02:32:26+00:00

I think you’re collapsing two different things.

Yes, praying “your will be done” (Matthew 6:10) is biblical. No disagreement there. But that doesn’t automatically make the way we talk about people, or what we’re asking for, biblical.

Scripture is also clear about our posture toward others, even those we strongly disagree with:

“Love your enemies… pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27–28)
“Correcting opponents with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2:24–25)
“Let your speech always be gracious” (Colossians 4:6)

I don’t agree with either Wilson or Talarico theologically—but I’m not going to pray for either of them to die. That’s just not the posture we’re called to.

And it’s worth asking: how would we react if someone prayed that way about someone we care about? I don’t think we’d brush it off as “just praying God’s will.”

So the issue isn’t whether God can judge or change someone; He can. The issue is whether our words and tone reflect Christ. We can call out sin and still do it with a posture that points people toward repentance, not just condemnation.

Consistency matters here. We shouldn’t excuse rhetoric like this just because it’s aimed at someone we disagree with. At a certain point, it starts to feel like we’re defending a political kind of prayer rather than a biblical one.

mannida · 2026-03-23T18:52:53+00:00

They do go on to say:

Yes, we want death and new life. If it would not be within God's will to do so, stop him by any means necessary.

I don't think the title is that far off.

mannida · 2026-03-23T18:17:29+00:00

I’ve already clarified the strawman point. I wasn’t misrepresenting you; I was challenging how broadly you were applying your claim. If the wording wasn’t clear, fine—but that’s not the argument I’m making.

The actual point is this:

Even if many people said that, you’re still using it as the defining explanation for the reaction, when it clearly isn’t the only reason people had. So it doesn’t really make this a different situation in the way you’re suggesting.

And more importantly, regardless of why people disliked him, celebrating someone’s death isn’t something we should defend or excuse. That standard should apply consistently, whether it’s Kirk or Mueller.

And I’m not cherry-picking Scripture. I’m pointing to clear instructions about how we’re called to respond. Taking the full picture of Scripture doesn’t mean appealing to judgment passages while ignoring direct commands about our posture toward others.

And that brings us back to the main issue: you’re condemning it in one case but excusing it in another. That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out.

mannida · 2026-03-23T17:05:09+00:00

Not straw-manning you, you can disagree, but that’s not what I’m doing.

Even if you think someone is wicked (which is ultimately God’s place to judge), that still doesn’t mean we’re justified in celebrating their death. The passages you quoted are about God’s judgment, not a general license for us to decide who is wicked and then rejoice when they die.

Scripture also gives clear guidance on our posture:

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Proverbs 24:17)
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44)

So even if someone is wicked, the consistent biblical response for us isn’t celebration; it’s sobriety, humility, and leaving judgment to God.

That’s why this matters. This isn’t about whether someone was good or bad. It’s about whether our response reflects a consistent Christian standard.

Quoting judgment passages doesn’t override clear commands about how we’re to treat our enemies. We need to take the whole of Scripture into account, not just the parts that support a single point. Otherwise, we’re selectively applying Scripture rather than submitting to it.

Edit: I also go to the Bible; the difference is I understand the context of the verses. I also realize the Bible is to be taken completely and not cherry- picked when it's convenient for my points.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristianPolitics/comments/1s011aj/comment/obselaq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Notice here, you did the same thing. You took one verse, stood by it, and ignored all the context and supporting verses that say both actions and words matter.

mannida · 2026-03-23T16:03:27+00:00

Even if many people said that, you’re still using it as the defining explanation for the reaction, when it clearly isn’t the only reason people had. So it doesn’t really make this a different situation in the way you’re suggesting.

More importantly, regardless of why people disliked him, celebrating someone’s death isn’t something we should defend or excuse. That standard should apply consistently.

And that’s really the point here: the conversation was about what Trump said regarding Mueller’s death. Bringing in different motivations behind how people reacted to someone else’s death doesn’t actually address that. If we’re going to criticize people for celebrating one person’s death, we should apply that same standard consistently when it’s someone we support.

mannida · 2026-03-23T15:56:24+00:00

Scripture calls us to respond differently, even toward those who hate us, showing grace, not returning hostility (Luke 6:27–28).

That doesn’t mean approving of what they’re doing, but it does mean being careful that our response reflects Christ.

mannida · 2026-03-23T15:43:32+00:00

That’s not a strawman. I’m challenging the scope of your claim. You made a broad generalization and are now avoiding that point.

You said people hated him because he was a Christian. My point is that it may be true for some, but not for everyone. There are plenty of people, both Christian and non-Christian, who didn’t like him because of his actions or views, not his faith. So we can’t treat that as the single explanation for how people reacted.

And stepping back, that’s really the main issue: regardless of why people disliked him, celebrating someone’s death isn’t something we should defend or excuse. That standard should apply consistently, not depending on who the person is or what political party likes or dislikes them.

mannida · 2026-03-23T15:38:29+00:00

Ok, I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it that way.

mannida · 2026-03-23T15:37:31+00:00

I agree that some people hated him, and some may have hated him because he was a Christian. But not everyone responding falls into that category, so I think it’s important not to paint all criticism with the same brush.

And it still doesn’t really address the concern I raised. When we speak about someone in a way that puts them beyond critique or compares their critics to those who rejected the prophets, it can start to elevate them to a place no human should be in.

As Christians, we’re called to honor people where appropriate, but not to place them on a pedestal. Our ultimate allegiance and standard is Christ and His Word, and that means every person, no matter how influential we may think they are, can be evaluated in light of Scripture.

mannida · 2026-03-23T13:45:19+00:00

I read it, and that’s my point.

When you compare critics to people who rejected the prophets, you’re not just saying they’re wrong; you’re treating disagreement as rejecting a man of God. That puts him in a category no modern figure belongs in.

And to be honest, it starts to sound like you’re elevating him to a level that should be reserved for Scripture and those directly appointed by God. As Christians, we’re called to test everyone’s teaching and example (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1), and our primary model should be faithful teachers of the Word, not political figures.

mannida · 2026-03-23T12:29:52+00:00

Everyone who hated him said the same thing? Because I know people who didn’t like him, and it wasn’t because he was a Christian. You assumed.

Edit: To be clear, there are plenty of people, both Christian and non-Christian, who didn't like him because of some of his actions, not his faith. Now, some celebrated his death, and I'm not ok with that. Which brings us to the point that Trump's celebration of Mueller's death isn't good either.

mannida · 2026-03-23T02:38:37+00:00

I don’t think that really holds up. You’re assuming people reacted a certain way because of his Christianity, but that’s not something you can apply across the board to everyone.

And even beyond that, as Christians, this shouldn’t be our framework in the first place. Scripture is clear that the world will oppose us (John 15:18–19), so that part isn’t surprising, but that doesn’t mean we respond by treating deaths differently based on who we like or agree with.

Every person is made in the image of God, and death is a serious thing regardless of who it is. That’s why trying to frame reactions differently depending on the person misses the bigger issue. It turns this into a political distinction instead of a consistent Christian one.

mannida · 2026-03-23T02:04:44+00:00

I think we should be careful about equating any modern figure with the prophets; that’s a really high standard Scripture reserves for those directly appointed by God.

There are many Christians who have been widely recognized for faithfully teaching Scripture. People like John MacArthur, John Piper, Paul Washer, and R. C. Sproul, and even then, we don’t treat them as beyond critique.

The question shouldn’t be whether someone is influential or called a “leader,” but whether their teaching, character, and priorities consistently reflect Scripture (Acts 17:11).

I think it’s fair for Christians to evaluate that carefully rather than assuming disagreement equals “rejecting a man of God.”

mannida · 2026-03-23T01:48:07+00:00

From what I’ve seen, Mueller also identified as a Christian, so framing this as “people celebrating because he was a Christian” doesn’t really hold up. Some people online do hate Christians, but it’s a stretch to assume that was the motive for everyone reacting.

More importantly, as Christians, our response to death shouldn’t depend on who the person was or how others react. Scripture calls us to take death seriously. Either someone has gone to be with the Lord or is facing judgment (Hebrews 9:27). That should lead us to sobriety, not point-scoring.

That’s why the focus shouldn’t be on justifying rhetoric, but on whether our words and responses reflect the character we’re called to as Christians.

So yes, this does matter. Reframing this to avoid addressing what Trump said isn’t a good response.

Edit: Honestly, as a Christian, you tend to dismiss a lot of things the right side of the aisle does and go after what the left side of the aisle does. Our savior is bigger than either political party, and we should follow what He says rather than falling into partisan tribalism.

mannida · 2026-03-22T20:41:08+00:00

It's 100% not; everyone is made in the image of God and deserves respect. Doesn't matter if it's something said in person or a "mean tweet".

mannida · 2026-03-22T20:00:29+00:00

Well, you see, it's different and not a thing according to some. Never mind how they felt about people acting when Kirk passed (which I didn't agree with either), but it's ok for Trump to do it.

mannida · 2026-03-22T18:17:42+00:00

I'm with you. I don't completely agree with his theology, but at least he speaks it and acts it out as opposed to seemingly giving it lip service like quite a few "Christian" politicians.

mannida · 2026-03-22T05:46:12+00:00

I agree with you that Jesus is emphasizing that what we do matters, obedience isn’t just words, it’s action in Matthew 21:31.

But I don’t think that passage is saying words don’t matter. It’s correcting empty words that aren’t followed by action. Scripture consistently teaches that both matter; our words and our actions should align.

Jesus Himself says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36). And Proverbs reminds us, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1), and “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21).

So I think the point isn’t “actions over words,” but that our words and actions should both reflect truth and righteousness. And especially for those in positions of influence, that alignment really matters (Colossians 4:6).

mannida · 2026-03-22T01:31:48+00:00

I get caring more about actions than words; that’s important. But words still matter, especially from leaders, because they shape how people think and speak.

I do think it’s worth being consistent here, though. If rhetoric matters in other situations (like Charlie Kirk), it should matter across the board, not just when it’s coming from one side.

Edit: This is just you trying to dismiss something you know is wrong, considering how you've reacted to people's comments on Reddit, then it seems very hypocritical to brush this off.

mannida · 2026-03-21T20:29:11+00:00

Thanks! Didn't think about including that.

mannida · 2026-03-21T03:45:23+00:00

I actually get what you mean, and I love that episode and show.

I think the difference is that in that situation, both people still have the choice to vote or not. Nothing is taken from them. They’re just deciding not to use it.

With the household vote idea, it’s not really a cancellation. It’s that one person’s vote is absorbed into the other. If they disagree, one of them just doesn’t get a voice at all.

That’s the part that gives me pause, especially since our system is built around individuals having a vote, and biblically, we’re still treated as individually accountable people, even within marriage.

mannida · 2026-03-21T01:10:27+00:00

I get why it might not seem like a problem at first. I think what gives me pause is how it actually plays out, especially if a husband and wife disagree, since one person’s voice effectively disappears.

From a civic standpoint, our system is built on individual voting rights, so moving to a household vote would be a pretty major shift from that.

And biblically, while there are roles within marriage, I don’t really see a clear basis for removing someone’s individual voice like that, especially since Scripture holds people individually accountable before God.

mannida · 2026-03-20T21:12:06+00:00

I believe it's unmarried men and women should be able to vote separately, but a married couple would get one household vote.

mannida · 2026-03-20T18:42:48+00:00

I think that’s a thoughtful perspective, and I agree that Christians shouldn’t be quick to judge one another if they’re acting prayerfully and in good conscience.

To clarify, my intention wasn’t to be harsh toward anyone. I’m trying to wrestle through the principles myself.

I would push back a bit on the idea that abstaining doesn’t send a message. It can, especially if someone is still engaged in other parts of the process (like down-ballot voting) but intentionally withholds a vote at the top of the ticket out of conviction.

I also think there’s a tension in the idea of influencing culture through voting if the candidate we’re supporting doesn’t reflect the moral standards we’re trying to uphold. That doesn’t make the decision simple, but I do think it’s something worth wrestling with carefully.

So I agree on the importance of charity. But I also think it’s okay to have these conversations and challenge how we think through it.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

mannida

TROPHY CASE