To be clear, I'm not pushing that argument, merely considering the conundrum.
But, anyhow, I'm not sure it's the same. At least not for all evangelicals. Many seem to think there's no problem: Trump is part of God's plan, so there's no point in considering if there's anything bad about Trump.
It's for the segment that feel like they're selling their souls that things getting interesting. Then you get into categorical comparisons, as well as degree. E.g. the former: is dirty pool in politics the same as promoting a politician with distinctly evil personal traits? E.g. the latter: is lying about a Whitehouse fling the same as lying about a stolen election?
The "Trump is God's plan" idea comes from the teaching that God can use evil men for His own good purposes. However, evangelicals that support Trump have distorted the teaching to mean that it is okay for Christians to help put an objectively evil man in power and then hope God will use him for God's good purposes. They also have reversed the direction of God's will. They are not supposed to substitute their own desires for God's will. Furthermore, the free will aspect of the gospel is that people are free as individuals to choose or reject "God's saving grace" and the commandments that accompany that grace. Christians are not supposed to legislatively or judicially impose those commandments on society as a whole without the explicit buy-in of that society. Nor are they supposed to attribute to God the "commandments of men." The book, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism," documents the corrupted Gospel a number of influential evangelical preachers have been teaching for decades. Jesus' condemnation of such teachers is very strong.
I pretty much agree with you on those points, but they're largely tangential to my preceding comment. Religion can be stretched every which way, at least by many. That doesn't mean it's right or good.
"God's morals can't be understood by we mere humans."
Probably my fav catch-all: "God works in mysterious ways".
To be clear, I'm not pushing that argument, merely considering the conundrum.
But, anyhow, I'm not sure it's the same. At least not for all evangelicals. Many seem to think there's no problem: Trump is part of God's plan, so there's no point in considering if there's anything bad about Trump.
It's for the segment that feel like they're selling their souls that things getting interesting. Then you get into categorical comparisons, as well as degree. E.g. the former: is dirty pool in politics the same as promoting a politician with distinctly evil personal traits? E.g. the latter: is lying about a Whitehouse fling the same as lying about a stolen election?
The "Trump is God's plan" idea comes from the teaching that God can use evil men for His own good purposes. However, evangelicals that support Trump have distorted the teaching to mean that it is okay for Christians to help put an objectively evil man in power and then hope God will use him for God's good purposes. They also have reversed the direction of God's will. They are not supposed to substitute their own desires for God's will. Furthermore, the free will aspect of the gospel is that people are free as individuals to choose or reject "God's saving grace" and the commandments that accompany that grace. Christians are not supposed to legislatively or judicially impose those commandments on society as a whole without the explicit buy-in of that society. Nor are they supposed to attribute to God the "commandments of men." The book, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism," documents the corrupted Gospel a number of influential evangelical preachers have been teaching for decades. Jesus' condemnation of such teachers is very strong.
I pretty much agree with you on those points, but they're largely tangential to my preceding comment. Religion can be stretched every which way, at least by many. That doesn't mean it's right or good.
"God's morals can't be understood by we mere humans."
Probably my fav catch-all: "God works in mysterious ways".