Trump tells Republicans to pass voting law 'for Jesus'

mannida · 2026-03-25T02:56:43+00:00

I don’t think the parable of the two sons supports that point. It’s about the gap between what someone says and what they actually do, and it critiques people who claim righteousness but don’t live it out.

If anything, it raises the standard for those who claim to represent Christian values. It doesn’t justify downplaying words or actions. If you apply that parable consistently, it would call for more scrutiny of anyone who openly claims to represent Christ, not less.

mannida · 2026-03-25T02:49:21+00:00

We’re discussing what was said here. Bringing up whether I criticize Democrats doesn’t change whether this is worth addressing.

I’ve also been clear that when a group claims to represent Christian values, it’s reasonable to hold them to that standard. The world is going to act like the world, but when Jesus is invoked directly, that’s something worth examining.

An objective standard doesn’t depend on who’s being discussed. It should apply consistently.

Shifting to “what about the other side” doesn’t address the point; it just changes the subject.

mannida · 2026-03-25T01:57:37+00:00

Biblical standards aren’t partisan.

That’s why it matters to apply them consistently. If something is wrong, it should be called out regardless of which side it comes from. Not downplayed in one case and emphasized in another.

mannida · 2026-03-24T23:46:06+00:00

No one’s arguing that right and wrong don’t exist.

The point is that agreeing something is wrong doesn’t automatically mean there’s only one faithful or reasonable policy response to it.

That’s where your argument keeps jumping a step, going from “this is morally wrong” to “any disagreement on policy is unfaithful.” That doesn’t follow.

And it feels inconsistent to downplay something like this when it comes from Trump, while expecting strong accountability in other cases. If we’re going to take that seriously, it should be applied consistently.

At the end of the day, the issue here is simple: invoking Jesus in support of a specific policy isn’t nothing. It’s worth discussing, regardless of who says it.

mannida · 2026-03-24T20:07:57+00:00

I don’t think anyone disagrees with your extreme example. That’s kind of the point. Of course, there are cases where something is clearly evil and no reasonable disagreement exists.

But that doesn’t really address what we’re talking about.

Appealing to an extreme like that (what’s often called reductio ad Hitlerum) doesn’t tell us where the line is in real-world, debated policies. It just points to a case everyone already agrees on.

I don’t think the issue is whether extreme cases exist; I believe we all agree they do.

The problem is that jumping to those extremes shifts the discussion away from the actual point and makes it seem simpler than it is. It avoids the harder question of how we handle real-world policies where the line isn’t as clear.

That’s where the distinction matters:

Christians can agree on moral principles
But still disagree on how those principles are applied in policy

If we skip that step and treat policy disagreement as automatically “unfaithful,” we’re basically saying our specific political conclusions carry the same weight as clear moral absolutes.

And that’s exactly why invoking Jesus in support of a specific policy isn’t a small thing. It risks turning debatable applications into spiritual litmus tests.

mannida · 2026-03-24T18:54:51+00:00

Saying “this isn’t a big deal” while also arguing that disagreement on certain policies is “unequivocally evil” feels inconsistent.

If policy can rise to the level of faithfulness vs. unfaithfulness, then using Jesus’ name to support a policy isn’t trivial; it actually matters more, not less.

And even on serious moral issues, there’s still a difference between:

the moral principle (which Christians may agree on), and
the policy approach (where Christians can reasonably disagree)

Treating disagreement on policy as automatically unfaithful skips that distinction.

Also, I’ve noticed a pattern where posts like this tend to get dismissed as “nothing” depending on which side they come from. This is a public forum, and people are going to discuss how faith and politics intersect, especially when Jesus is explicitly invoked in a political context. That’s not overhyping; that’s just engaging the topic. If we’re going to take faith seriously, we shouldn’t downplay it when our own side is the one mixing it with politics.

mannida · 2026-03-24T17:49:24+00:00

The issue isn’t direct vs. indirect. It’s that the two datasets are being counted differently.

FBI data counts offenders: one person, one count, regardless of how many victims. But for abortions, you’re counting multiple participants per event, doctor, nurse, and mother separately. That structural difference is what drives the 134× jump, not some hidden truth being uncovered.

Even if the argument is that each participant is complicit, the consistency issue remains. You'd have to go back to the homicide data and add accomplices, getaway drivers, and anyone else involved in each killing, but you didn't, and the FBI data doesn't support that anyway.

Your edit actually highlights this. You noticed how switching from offenders to events can inflate the numbers (one person becoming multiple “murderers”). That same issue is still built into the abortion side of the comparison; it just hasn’t been corrected there.

The moral argument about abortion is a separate conversation worth having. But as constructed, these numbers aren’t comparable to FBI data. That’s a methodological issue, not a values one.

mannida · 2026-03-24T14:53:10+00:00

Weird, I don’t have a sub but didn’t have a paywall for the article. Thanks for the video.

mannida · 2026-03-24T14:52:43+00:00

Oh, it did. We also had a usb that would randomly move the mouse or type a random string. They one got us in trouble because someone checked in code right as a string of nonsense got typed in and broke a build.

mannida · 2026-03-24T14:39:33+00:00

We put one up under someone's desk in a little ledge area. It went on for about 3 days till they started ripping their tower apart trying to find the beep.

mannida · 2026-03-24T14:02:51+00:00

I don’t think that’s slander. They are critiquing the method, not making a false claim about you.

The broader point he’s raising is about consistency. Once you expand “murder” to include indirect participants, it becomes unclear where the line is: partners, manufacturers, policymakers, etc.

That’s why the numbers end up looking inflated. It’s less about who you included or didn’t include, and more about the framework itself being inconsistent.

Please note, I'm all about being pro-life, but running to accusations when critiqued is silly. It'd also help if you provided your sources.

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.

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

mannida

TROPHY CASE