Trump Assassination Attempt At Correspondents Dinner

[Jerome]

"The suspect’s father, Thomas Allen, is listed as an elder at Grace United Reformed Church Torrance."

Pasadena United Reformed Church, Cole Allen's church.

Joshua Lindsey of Ready to Harvest explains the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA):

 

[JonC]

According to news reports he considers himself the real Christian. Even Yahoo reported these quotes. It was Trump who said he hated Christians in the news conference. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. From what I have seen on the woke Christian blogs and websites, including Christianity Today and other YouTube videos, the things he said in the quotes were what these sites are teaching. Not that they were advocating violence, but the issues he reportedly brought up are indeed what they are teaching as the truth of what MAGA and Trump and all Christians who felt Trump was a better choice last election are up to. I would love to know more about this campus Christian group. And I will be waiting to see if the standard "be careful of your words and hyperbolic statements because someone unstable may listen to you" also applies to their side.

The issue I see, really on both sides, is too many people believe what their chosen party tells them and both parties have as their primary agenda to gain political power.

I believe (hope) that most Democrats and most Republicans take what they are fed with a grain of salt. But that extreme rhetoric (e.g., Democrats are Communists, Republicans are Nazis) is, it seems, increasingly believed by a larger group of people.

Or perhaps it is the rhetoric has increased so much that the extreme sheeple are galvanized to action as both sides present the opposing party as the end of the nation.

 

[canadyjd]

The issue I see, really on both sides, is too many people believe what their chosen party tells them and both parties have as their primary agenda to gain political power.

I believe (hope) that most Democrats and most Republicans take what they are fed with a grain of salt. But that extreme rhetoric (e.g., Democrats are Communists, Republicans are Nazis) is, it seems, increasingly believed by a larger group of people.

Or perhaps it is the rhetoric has increased so much that the extreme sheeple are galvanized to action as both sides present the opposing party as the end of the nation.

Well, the reason the extreme rhetoric doesn’t stick to DT is that it is untrue. He’s not a Nazi, dictator, king etc.

However, the Democratic Party is controlled by people (for at least 15-20 years), that seek to silence all opposing views (Nazi), have government control (communism) and destroy (both literally and figuratively) everyone that stands in their way.

There are “extremists” on both sides without doubt. But the numbers on the right do not come close to the number of people in the left that are extremists.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

Well, the reason the extreme rhetoric doesn’t stick to DT is that it is untrue. He’s not a Nazi, dictator, king etc.

However, the Democratic Party is controlled by people (for at least 15-20 years), that seek to silence all opposing views (Nazi), have government control (communism) and destroy (both literally and figuratively) everyone that stands in their way.

There are “extremists” on both sides without doubt. But the numbers on the right do not come close to the number of people in the left that are extremists.

Peace to you

The extreme rhetoric does stick with the sheeple. None of the extreme rhetoric is actually true.

Both sides (the extremes) try to silence opposition in one way or another. That is why Republicans did not complain when Trump called Democrats "communists" and "Marxists" (even though the Democrat ideology and Marxism is very different) and Democrats did not complain when Pelosi called Trump racist and compared him to Hitler.

The extreme rhetoric itself is a measure to silence opposition.


In an honest system both sides would want to present the opposing side fairly because they believe that they have the better solution.

But that is not what we have. We have two evil parties striving for political power which they recognize as a limited resource, and power is what matters to them.

 

[DaveXR650]

The issue I see, really on both sides, is too many people believe what their chosen party tells them and both parties have as their primary agenda to gain political power.

I believe (hope) that most Democrats and most Republicans take what they are fed with a grain of salt. But that extreme rhetoric (e.g., Democrats are Communists, Republicans are Nazis) is, it seems, increasingly believed by a larger group of people.

Or perhaps it is the rhetoric has increased so much that the extreme sheeple are galvanized to action as both sides present the opposing party as the end of the nation.

You might be right but the point I am making is that nothing the guy said, at least from what I have seen quoted so far, cannot be found in recent articles and blogs by Christianity Today, David French, Russell Moore. You can make the case that a person with normal mental health, and especially a Christian of any stripe would not take those writings as an incitement to such actions, but still, what I'm saying is true and I think it needs to be addressed. The rhetoric on the left and even the woke end of Christian writers is indeed getting more extreme and worse in this respect.

Presenting the opposing party as the end of the nation is standard politics that goes way back and it does occur on both sides. But the assumption that this is somehow equivalent on both sides and acting like the level of violence is equivalent on both sides won't work.

 

[JonC]

You might be right but the point I am making is that nothing the guy said, at least from what I have seen quoted so far, cannot be found in recent articles and blogs by Christianity Today, David French, Russell Moore. You can make the case that a person with normal mental health, and especially a Christian of any stripe would not take those writings as an incitement to such actions, but still, what I'm saying is true and I think it needs to be addressed. The rhetoric on the left and even the woke end of Christian writers is indeed getting more extreme and worse in this respect.

Presenting the opposing party as the end of the nation is standard politics that goes way back and it does occur on both sides. But the assumption that this is somehow equivalent on both sides and acting like the level of violence is equivalent on both sides won't work.

I view the DNC platform as the sins of Romans 3. They are what Scripture tells us that we will see in this world when speaking of how humanity will become.

The GOP is different. While the DNC are proud "wolves" the GOP practices a more covert violence. It is Christianity absent Christ, serving the same political end (political power). The GOP needs its wool clothing.

When I evaluate the two as somehow equivalent I am not saying identical. The ultimate goal is identical (political power), but the means of achieving that power is different. And it has to be different, otherwise one would be assimilated by the other. They are opposite sides of the same coin. Together they form a single and almost all encompassing evil.

The Democrat Party is a danger to the US that the Republican Party is not. It (the party, not necessarily the sheeple) holds a hatred for America that can only be resolved in destroying and remaking the nation.

The Republican Party is a danger to Christianity in our nation. It (the party, not necessarily the sheeple), while holding a form of godliness but denying the power of the gospel, looks to secular political solutions to solve what is actually spiritual problems.

Which is the greater danger? It depends on one's perspective. If your concern is the United States then the Democrat Party is the greater evil. If your concern is the kingdom of God then the Republican Party is the greater evil.

 

[DaveXR650]

Which is the greater danger? It depends on one's perspective. If your concern is the United States then the Democrat Party is the greater evil. If your concern is the kingdom of God then the Republican Party is the greater evil.

Do you really believe that last statement? This is why I have such contempt for the "woke" end of Christianity. Many of them, and apparently you, actually believe such nonsense. All I would ask is that you would at least be able to give actual examples of this principle, knowing what we all know about the relative positions on a variety of issues taken by the parties.

 

[JonC]

Do you really believe that last statement? This is why I have such contempt for the "woke" end of Christianity. Many of them, and apparently you, actually believe such nonsense. All I would ask is that you would at least be able to give actual examples of this principle, knowing what we all know about the relative positions on a variety of issues taken by the parties.

Yes, of course. Otherwise I would not have written it.

I can give examples of this. Several have been discussed here (like "going to church for Charlie Kirk" and the "Trump Bible"). But other examples would be this "woke" Christianity that the Republican Party advocates (an "all inclusive Christianity" based on conservative values). We saw this in Trump's statement that the shooter at the WHCA "hated Christianity". We see this in the Republican Party embrace of Christian homosexuality (the gay Christian conservatives). It is in the idea that Anerica is a "Christian nation". It is in the mentality that politics (specifically supporting the GOP) is a "Christian duty". It was visable in Doug Mastriano’s 2022 campaign. It is in the "theology" of the New Apostolic Reformation. Turn on Fox News this Sunday morning and you will see many of these examples.

I simply see the wolf in sheep's clothing as more dangerous to the sheep than the naked wolf. You see the naked wolf coming from miles away but the one that looks like a sheep gets close, and even then some sheep do not recognize it for what it is.


Generally "woke Christianity" is merely a Democrat attempt at maintaining some religious tradition. But Christians can see it is not Christian.

I am talking about an evil political power that looks Christian in terms of values but is void of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Looks correct! I did not see those pictures!

Stunned that anyone attending a Christian fellowship would do this. How could you convince yourself that murder is ok?

Many Christians do the same thing (choose what they believe is the "lesser of two evils"), just not to the same extreme (not putting it all on the line, so to speak).

There are spirits, principalities. These influence people, especially those given to secular politics and powers. This does not mean they are not Christian.


The shooter, Cole Allen, believed what his political party taught him. He believed that that Trump was a pedophile, rapist, traitor, and murderer under which people were suffering and without intervention this would continue.

We know that he believed this because he said he believed that and was willing to die for that belief.


Ask - if you could kill Hitler and save thousands, would that be contrary to Christianity? I would say it would, but many Christians would view that as protecting thousands of innocent lives.

Would you shoot an intruder to protect your family? I would (my reasoning being that I am called to protect my family, as a Christian responsibility). Some would not. That does not make one of is anti-Christian.

Allen believed Trump was a pedophile, rapist, and traitor under whom people were suffering and dying, requiring intervention to prevent more suffering, oppression and death.


My argument is that it could be Allen's Christian faith that enabled him to lay down his own life to save others.

The problem is not Christianity but the kool-aid he drank. He compromised his faith by blending it with politics and fell victim to the spirits of this world.


We saw this with some of those, in the opposite side of the coin, involved at the Jan 6 riot. Guess it is very hard to serve Christ and a political party.

 

[DaveXR650]

I can give examples of this. Several have been discussed here (like "going to church for Charlie Kirk" and the "Trump Bible"). But other examples would be this "woke" Christianity that the Republican Party advocates (an "all inclusive Christianity" based on conservative values). We saw this in Trump's statement that the shooter at the WHCA "hated Christianity". We see this in the Republican Party embrace of Christian homosexuality (the gay Christian conservatives). It is in the idea that Anerica is a "Christian nation". It is in the mentality that politics (specifically supporting the GOP) is a "Christian duty". It was visable in Doug Mastriano’s 2022 campaign. It is in the "theology" of the New Apostolic Reformation. Turn on Fox News this Sunday morning and you will see many of these examples.

Those examples, some of which I am not familiar with at all, are at best examples of what is running with the Republican party. I understand what you are saying. I used to cringe when for a while the Republicans were all enamored with Milo Yanopoulis. (Not sure of the spelling.) But I don't follow your logic. Using Milo as an example, it seems that what you are saying is that because the Republicans were allowing a known and proudly practicing homosexual to speak on political issues it would better then to reject the party - and go with the party that advocates and pushes for the homosexual agenda and is promising to enact legislation to further that agenda and force it upon the rest of the population. This just does not make sense.

 

[JonC]

Those examples, some of which I am not familiar with at all, are at best examples of what is running with the Republican party. I understand what you are saying. I used to cringe when for a while the Republicans were all enamored with Milo Yanopoulis. (Not sure of the spelling.) But I don't follow your logic. Using Milo as an example, it seems that what you are saying is that because the Republicans were allowing a known and proudly practicing homosexual to speak on political issues it would better then to reject the party - and go with the party that advocates and pushes for the homosexual agenda and is promising to enact legislation to further that agenda and force it upon the rest of the population. This just does not make sense.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not my objection. I am in no way opposed to homosexuals being leaders in the Republican Party.

I am saying that the Republican Party aligns with religious values (moral values common with the traditional values of major world religions). When it comes to secular morality Republican values align with Christianity while Democrat values do not. I grant you that.

But the Republican Party capitalizes on Christianity and uses my faith as a political pawn (as a source for power) while itself being void of Christ.

I believe there is a reason we were told not to fear the world and to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. The world does not come at us looking at us. The wolves do.


The Republican Party pushes the conservative homosexual agenda just as much as does the Democrat Party pushes the liberal homosexual agenda. AND it should be thar way. Secular politics IS a worldly power. A secular government should not oppress its citizens for their sexual oriententation or religious beliefs. Our government is designed to represent its citizens.

Christian Republicans just ignore the normalization of sin in its own party because these "Gays for Trump" are conservative (they are "moral gays").


Republican values mirror the moral values Christians hold, but they are not actually the same values as they have a different base (they arise from a different foundation).

 

[Ascetic X]

My argument is that it could be Allen's Christian faith that enabled him to lay down his own life to save others.

I very much doubt that his Christian faith, if he really had any, prompted his murderous actions.

Nowhere does Jesus say we can kill anybody. He told Peter to put away his sword. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Resist not evil. Blessed be the peacemakers. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Killing people is not “laying down your own life to save others”. Although he likely knew that his attempted act of murder would cause his own life to be ended or be put in grave danger, that is not laying down your life, it is laying down the lives of others.

 

[JonC]

I very much doubt that his Christian faith, if he really had any, prompted his murderous actions.

Nowhere does Jesus say we can kill anybody. He told Peter to put away his sword. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Resist not evil. Blessed be the peacemakers. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Killing people is not “laying down your own life to save others”. Although he likely knew that his attempted act of murder would cause his own life to be ended or be put in grave danger, that is not laying down your life, it is laying down the lives of others.

I don't doubt it.

The reason is there are many Christians who believe that killing a rapist who is murdering people and causing suffering is not only acceptable but the right thing to do.

I am with you that it is wrong, but you will find a lot of Christians differ.

We have had this discussion before on this forum. Some view loving your neighbor as sometimes requiring action to protect your neighbor.

The Hitler question comes into play here. Would it have been wrong for a Christian to kill Hitler in order to save thousands of people? You certainly would not be loving Hitler. But you would be loving those you save from his tyranny.

"Laying down your life" is putting oneself in danger of death for a cause, principle or person. It is not killing somebody, but it would be if you do so believing you may be killed for the benefit of others.


But to say one's Christian faith could not lead somebody to kill a person in order to save other people is not logical.

 

[DaveXR650]

But the Republican Party capitalizes on Christianity and uses my faith as a political pawn (as a source for power) while itself being void of Christ.

We have to live in this country. If the Republican party is acquiescing to some things Christians find important then that indicates a properly functioning government. There are within the party, real Christians, marginal Christians, hypocrites and then other beliefs, from cults to agnostics and atheists. The party, functioning as a party, indeed compromises. You seem to think this is wrong but the fact is we have a lot of common ground with these other groups. I don't think atheists and homosexuals want to get murdered or robbed any more than Christians or Jews. You are asking the Republican party to be what is not required of it.

I believe there is a reason we were told not to fear the world and to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. The world does not come at us looking at us. The wolves do.

Using your own example refutes your argument. Wolves in sheep's clothing refers to religious leaders. Would you have us leave the faith because there are hypocrites involved and join the pagans?

The Republican Party pushes the conservative homosexual agenda just as much as does the Democrat Party pushes the liberal homosexual agenda.

That is flat out incorrect. A homosexual can be an economist (there is one very well known example but there is no need to name names), and advocate sound economic policies. That does not make him pushing a homosexual agenda. Advocating that homosexuals should feel protected and feel safe like other citizens is not pushing a homosexual agenda. Pushing a homosexual agenda is changing the meaning of marriage, infiltrating school boards so that homosexual teachers can push their beliefs on students, requiring Christian charities to hire homosexuals when it is against their belief system and so on. No, Republicans don't do this but Democrats do. This is very straightforward and easy to understand.

Christian Republicans just ignore the normalization of sin in its own party because these "Gays for Trump" are conservative (they are "moral gays").

They have to tolerate them, at least that is the party hack's opinion. I don't know if that is wise but there again you have that balance and compromise of politics. I don't know anyone who says they are moral gays. In fairness, I admit I have some relatives and some acquaintances who are involved in that lifestyle who I personally like and consider friends. They are not Republicans and they are aware of how I feel about their lifestyle. But in a sense I overlook their sin too.

Republican values mirror the moral values Christians hold, but they are not actually the same values as they have a different base (they arise from a different foundation).

The only thing we as Christians need from the Republicans is that they do this. It would be nice if they all were good Christians, but not necessary for the secular purpose they do. And if they are punishing evil and rewarding good among the citizens then they are also accomplishing a divine purpose of human government, like Rome was, even though they had raped and pillaged half the world. We tolerate what we have to, and try to improve things when we can.

 

[DaveXR650]

Allen believed Trump was a pedophile, rapist, and traitor under whom people were suffering and dying, requiring intervention to prevent more suffering, oppression and death.


My argument is that it could be Allen's Christian faith that enabled him to lay down his own life to save others.

The problem is not Christianity but the kool-aid he drank. He compromised his faith by blending it with politics and fell victim to the spirits of this world.

You're right. That is exactly what he said himself. And my original post was pointing out that the woke Christian bloggers and youtube channels are making the exact arguments he was making. Although, they most certainly were not, at least that I ever heard actually advocating what he did. Some others on the left though, did advocate such things, including some Democratic politicians. That was brought out in a news conference today and names were named.

 

[Ascetic X]

The reason is there are many Christians who believe that killing a rapist who is murdering people and causing suffering is not only acceptable but the right thing to do.

I am with you that it is wrong, but you will find a lot of Christians differ.

We have had this discussion before on this forum. Some view loving your neighbor as sometimes requiring action to protect your neighbor.

The Hitler question comes into play here. Would it have been wrong for a Christian to kill Hitler in order to save thousands of people? You certainly would not be loving Hitler. But you would be loving those you save from his tyranny.

"Laying down your life" is putting oneself in danger of death for a cause, principle or person. It is not killing somebody, but it would be if you do so believing you may be killed for the benefit of others.


But to say one's Christian faith could not lead somebody to kill a person in order to save other people is not logical.

The ungodly news media might claim that Christian faith can motivate a person to murder someone, but this is not true Christian faith. Killing abortion doctors, for example, is not something Jesus would do or approve of. Jesus and His disciples never killed anyone for any reason, though Peter tried once, and was sternly rebuked by Jesus.

Christians who think they can kill cannot find any teaching of Jesus to support their view, so I cannot accept that Christian faith could prompt anyone to kill.

Revelation 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

 

[JonC]

You seem to think this is wrong but the fact is we have a lot of common ground with these other groups.

I am going to stop at this because you made a mistake.

I was not talking about anybody. I was talking about a "power of this world".

I have a lot of common ground with the Republican Party (probably more so with the Republican Party a couple of decades ago). I hold many of the same values.

But as a Christian I have a lot of common ground with many world religions as well. That does not mean I support those religions, even though they hold many of the same values.

I believe that the cause for our morals and values matter, and (to me) the Cause is not secondary to the value. The values I hold are manifestations of Christ.


But yes, one could support Muslims for America to advance shared values. But that is not all one would be advancing.

 

[JonC]

Christians who think they can kill cannot find any teaching of Jesus to support their view, so I cannot accept that Christian faith could prompt anyone to kill.

Revelation 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

I agree. But I do draw a line at protecting my family.

A counter-argument is inaction that allows the rape of women, the molestation of children, and the murder of men is guilt for those crimes.

If an intruder breaks in your house and you refrain from protecting your family then, according to some, their blood would be on your hands as well (you become a murderer).

 

[DaveXR650]

I am going to stop at this because you made a mistake.

I was not talking about anybody. I was talking about a "power of this world".

I have a lot of common ground with the Republican Party (probably more so with the Republican Party a couple of decades ago). I hold many of the same values.

But as a Christian I have a lot of common ground with many world religions as well. That does not mean I support those religions, even though they hold many of the same values.

I believe that the cause for our morals and values matter, and (to me) the Cause is not secondary to the value. The values I hold are manifestations of Christ.


But yes, one could support Muslims for America to advance shared values. But that is not all one would be advancing.

Please understand that I completely respect someone who decides not to support any party or get involved in politics. But I would just suggest a couple of things. First, the "power of this world" has been dealt a fatal blow and will be defeated. Like Bunyan said in Pilgrim's Progress, as long as we are traveling on the King's highway it's Apollyon who needs to beware. Secondly, your values are not always compromised by your primary actions. If you need a policeman, the one who shows up can help you whether he is a Christian, atheist, Moslem or homosexual. God has not required you to worry about that. You are not compromising your values to use the system as it is and as God has ordained it at the time. Overall, I still will work to ensure that all the policemen are not Moslem, for sure, and I will vote strategically as I see fit to ensure that result. Without apology.

 

[Ascetic X]

Overall, I still will work to ensure that all the policemen are not Moslem, for sure, and I will vote strategically as I see fit to ensure that result. Without apology.

How are you working to ensure that all the policemen are not Muslims? How will strategic voting ensure this result?