More precisely, King Cyrus (the Persian King who liberated the Jews from the Babylonian captivity):
A sustained effort by influential Christian voices to justify Trump’s personal misdeeds and political cruelty has led to the frequent portrayal of Trump as a flawed vessel for God’s will. In particular, Trump has been compared to King Cyrus, who, according to the Bible, liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity, despite himself being a Persian ruler.
One of the first to make the Trump-Cyrus connection is Lance Wallnau. Wallnau, a business consultant who styles himself as a doctor – his LinkedIn page credits Phoenix University of Theology as his alma mater, but the university had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and its campus appears to be a PO box in Arizona – claims the “the Lord spoke” to him during the election period.
According to Wallnau God said, specifically: “Donald Trump is a wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness.”
Wallnau is not alone on this. Mike Evans, an evangelical leader who was invited to speak in front of Trump at a White House faith dinner, is also onboard with the Cyrus analogy. He explained the idea to the Christian Broadcasting Network in 2017.
“[Cyrus] was used as an instrument of God for deliverance in the Bible, and God has used this imperfect vessel, this flawed human being like you or I, this imperfect vessel, and he’s using him in an incredible, amazing way to fulfill his plans and purposes,” Evans said.
The article is more than four years old but the principle still applies.
That King Cyrus nonsense is fanwanking retconning. They like Trump for the same selfish shitty reasons all his other supporters do, but they’re fishing for a biblical excuse.
I get so incredibly frustrated by the entire idea of forced religion. That’s exactly what this is, is it not? Forcing everyone to follow their (the nebulous “they”) religious beliefs as the law of the land?
That same “they” would be incensed if there was another group of a different religious flavor imposing their will on the nation as a matter of law. Outlaw pork: no bacon or ribs or sausage biscuits because Jewish and Islamic religions forbid eating pork. Outlaw music and dancing because certain sects (Quakers, Seventh Day Adventists) consider that sinful? No blood transfusions for anyone since the Jehovah’s Witnesses are against them? No killing of any kind, to include bugs or germs, as certain Hindus believe? There are probably hundreds of examples along these lines. The point is they’d hate it if these religious practices were enshrined into law and they were forced to follow them.
“They” think Project 2025 is great since the laws and mores they propose fit their particular god kink. It’s not good enough for them to have the freedom to practice their religion in their homes with their families. No, they can’t stand to see anyone else have that same freedom. Gah!!!
I think everyone should practice MY religion. The main tenet is The Golden Rule: treat others as you’d like them to treat you. Everything after that is completely negotiable.
Sensible religious people recognize that freedom of religion protects them.
Fools think that laws requiring specific religions will never be used to prevent them practicing their own.
We unfortunately have a lot of fools.
– And I note that for some mysterious reason, when a Democratic or liberal politician gets elected, they never say that it must be God’s will; and that when a Democratic or liberal politician does something they claim to consider immoral, they never say that God must be working with an imperfect vessel.
Yeah, it’ll be Face Eating Leopard Heaven when they “win”, and they won’t see it coming.
One thing they don’t ever get is that separation of the church and state doesn’t only protect the state, it protects the churches as well. Right now, I don’t actually care what stupid crap they believe, or what actions they ban or require in their church, because it doesn’t affect me. But if they start mandating their religious rules via the power of the state? Suddenly I care very much about what their church believes, and the only way to protect my own freedom is to demand their church change its rules and beliefs.
Essentially, if everyone has to be a member of USA Church, Inc., it just turns that church into politics as usual. The new Democrat members will just vote that the church start supporting abortion rights and gay marriage.
I have a problem with your Golden Rule (I know, that is how it has been repeated for generations). It shouldn’t be “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but, rather, “Do unto others in the manner they would like to be treated.”
I suspect a majority of MAGAs would appreciate being accosted if they were homosexual or trans (good thing they aren’t, amirite?). After all, it’s only just. They would want physical threats, or worse, for behavior they feel is immoral. Not to worry, they would never do such a thing, but if they were to, they’d want someone to do whatever it takes to set them straight.
Treating people the way they would like to be treated, well, that’s much more difficult and requires understanding.
Yeah, “treat others as you would like others to treat you” sounds great in theory, but often falls apart in practice. In theory, it means treating others the way you would want to be treated. In practice, it’s “I’m going to project what I think you OUGHT to want, and behave accordingly.”
It’s like as if a Yankees fan were to say, “If I were a Boston Red Sox fan, I would WANT my team to be crushed by the Yankees every time, in order to teach me to be a better person and stop rooting for that crappy Boston team!”
Too many self-righteous and self-important people in the world would like and expect me to kiss their asses and worship their amazing greatness. Or lend them money. Or put their needs above my own. Or any other number of selfish behaviors that would make them happy and me decidedly less so.
I just read the agenda for the Department of health and human services, since that’s where I work.
Things I learned today: [bracketed remarks are mine]
The deaths of the Covid Pandemic were cause by the lock downs and the Vaccine and had nothing to do with the virus.
Health care is best handled by the wonders of the free market without all that pesky government regulations or employer insurance. [being in the midst of having a heart attack is the perfect time to price shop]
Lawmakers are much better than scientists at determining which studies are worthy of government funding, since [despite lack of ethics rules] they are less likely to be corrupted by corporate kick backs than NIH workers [who have extensive and strict ethics rules].
It is vitally important that every state where abortion is legal carefully document any abortions in their state including, how old the fetus was, and how the procedure was done and where the victim came from [so that they can be prosecuted when they get back home]
That the government owns the patents on products that their scientists invented on government time is a conflict of interest and proof of corruption.
The government should not partner with private companies to devlop life saving drugs.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or orientation is not a real problem.
I think this is set up for when they get their fantasy federal law through banning abortion nationwide. They’ll need to make sure to punish every woman that’s ever had an abortion that’s still alive today. You need lots of records for that. (I think there was another historical government that like to keep lots of unnecessary records…)
The Anti-christ uses check marks when you’re supposed to fill in the whole circle.
Ooookaaayyy… I can see where they’re coming from with all that other stuff, it’s pretty bog-standard nutbag stuff. But this?
Who do they think should own such patents? I’m going to guess it’s not the government scientists themselves. Are they just going to ban the government from applying for patents? Are they going to auction them off?
Not an analogy. The Golden Rule isn’t a way to impose what you think the world ought to be onto everyone else’s consciousness. It’s a convenient rule-of-thumb that you always carry with you. The correct way to envision it is “If I were in that circumstance, with all things reversed, how would I wish to have things done?” It’s the difference between “I shouldn’t steal that guy’s things, because I wouldn’t want him to steal my things” and “I should take his things, because he should want to give them to me”
Yes, but that’s my point - some people don’t understand that that’s what the Rule means.
I’ve known bullies to argue that they were living by the Golden Rule because “If I were such an awful person as (the person I’m bullying,) I would WANT to be bullied to make me come to my senses” (paraphrased.)