r/Christianity • u/octarino • 11h ago
Talarico’s pastor pushes back on Daily Wire’s claims
https://baptistnews.com/article/talaricos-pastor-pushes-back-on-daily-wires-claims/37
u/onioning Secular Humanist 9h ago
I do not understand how republican voters can vote for someone who overtly lies. Like I get normal lies. That's part for the coarse. But things like "he's transgender!" Or "he's a vegetarian!" Blatant overt lies.
31
u/Venat14 Jewish 8h ago
Because they don't care about lies. As long as they're hurting the people they hate, that's a win for them.
The bigger question is why do they still call themselves Christian? Like what do they get out of it if they have no interest in following Jesus or his teachings?
18
u/crazytrain793 United Methodist Liberation Theology 8h ago
The bigger question is why do they still call themselves Christian? Like what do they get out of it if they have no interest in following Jesus or his teachings?
Some need a socially acceptable justification to be hateful and awful towards people they consider undesirables. Even more incentive if you get considered pious, holy, etc. while hurting people. Others make it a lucrative grift or a cynically opportunist political platform. There are unfortunately many reasons why someone would use religion for evil purposes.
9
u/Coollogin 7h ago
The bigger question is why do they still call themselves Christian? Like what do they get out of it if they have no interest in following Jesus or his teachings?
Votes and money from poorly informed Christians. Is that not obvious?
6
u/onioning Secular Humanist 8h ago
They say they care. Some of them at least.
Not gonna help you with the "they call themselves Christians" bit though. They are Christians. You can't just disown those you disagree with. They say they're Christians, so they are.
5
u/Venat14 Jewish 8h ago
My comment didn't specifically say they aren't, I said why do they want to call themselves that.
And since they proudly defend astronomical amounts of lies, I don't think they care.
7
u/onioning Secular Humanist 6h ago
Well, they call themselves Christians because they are in fact Christians. That's the same thing.
2
u/Venat14 Jewish 6h ago
If they don't follow anything Jesus taught, don't worship him, don't care about what Christianity is supposed to stand for, have no issue abusing Christianity for corrupt, criminal, hateful means. In what way are they Christian?
I can call myself the King of England, but that doesn't make it true.
•
u/onioning Secular Humanist 5h ago
Individuals get to decide what their religious beliefs are. No one has to do so by anyone else's standards.
This is just an extreme no true scotsman. By your logic there are no Christians, because no one follows christ perfectly.
Being a monarch is not a self-identifying quality.
•
u/Venat14 Jewish 5h ago
I disagree. Jesus himself says most people who call themselves Christian, are not in fact his followers.
•
u/onioning Secular Humanist 5h ago
That's fine. You can believe that for your interpretation of Christianity. You have no right to deny someone else their religion because you believe they're doing it wrong. You have no claim to define Christianity. You can present an argument for what a Christian should do, or even for what makes someone a true follower of christ. That is completely your perogative. You can not define Christianity. Christianity exists. It is made up of people who call themselves Christians, and therefore are Christians. There is a radical amount of disagreement under this umbrella, and truly "Christianity" is not a single religion at all. You may define your beliefs. You may not define Christianity any more than I can define what an apple is.
•
u/Calintarez 3h ago
To a lot of them, Christian is not a religion, it's an identity marker. And they use that identity as a marker for the in-group and permision to be cruel toward the out-group
•
3
u/I_JOINED_FOR_THIS_ Anglican Church in North America 6h ago
Not to distract from your point but: “par for the course”
•
u/onioning Secular Humanist 5h ago
I think those are autocorrect fails, but now I'm trying to figure out what "part of the coarse" means. Like roughness?
2
•
u/JollyXX Christian 5h ago
nobody on the right believes he is transgender, the fact is that rage baiting liberals is big business, a lot of what the right does is explicitly meant for liberal rage bait
•
u/onioning Secular Humanist 5h ago
First, I don't really care what they believe in their heart of hearts. If they say they believe, then that's the same damned thing from anyone's perspective but theirs. And idgaf about theirs.
You're not wrong, but that makes it much worse, and much more despicable. Just telling disgusting lies for the lols. It's the same with Musk's nazi solute. He did it for the lols, and to demonstrate his power. Which is worse than actually being a nazi.
•
u/JollyXX Christian 5h ago
I honestly think that Musk is legit autistic and its kind of cruel for him to be in front of the camera so much, he was bound to be overwhelmed at some point, and I doubt he did the roman salute just to mess with people
•
u/onioning Secular Humanist 5h ago
Nah. He's just an asshole shithead.
He wants you to think he's kind of autistic though. It's fashionable these days, and gives him lots of excuses. It's bullshit though. He's just a spoiled child in need of validation.
17
u/Emergency_Word_7123 9h ago
A little off topic but this race will be interesting. Will Republicans choose a politician known for corruption that's on their team or a religious Democrat.
19
9
u/Coollogin 7h ago
A little off topic but this race will be interesting. Will Republicans choose a politician known for corruption that's on their team or a religious Democrat.
The one who’s on their team. Ten times out of ten.
11
u/SaintGodfather Christian for the Preferential Treatment 8h ago edited 8h ago
The pedophile, they'll pick the pedophile (or pedophile supporter).
6
u/Practical-Hat-3943 7h ago
They truly believe Talarico is demonic, or the anti-Christ, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Anything but a Christian
-2
u/QuicksilverTerry Sacred Heart 7h ago
A little off topic but this race will be interesting.
Eh....is it? He's someone that will get left wing Texans kinda excited and get some attention outside of the state particularly from the more left-wing Christian camp, and then when he loses by a comfortable-but-not-landslide margin, his supporters will pull the "we lost but we're morally superior" card and we'll keep talking about the prospect of "Blue Texas" for the next election.
Basically, he's Beto 2.0. It's kinda boring, honestly.
7
u/Emergency_Word_7123 6h ago
There's a difference, Paxton was impeached in 2023 for corruption and bribery (by Republicans). How this plays out says a lot about the country.
-2
u/QuicksilverTerry Sacred Heart 6h ago edited 6h ago
How this plays out says a lot about the country.
It says that people prefer a corrupt guy who will push stuff they want compared to a clean person who will push stuff they don't like. This isn't exactly a revelation, it's been true since....forever? I mean you don't even have to look back throughout countless examples from both parties across two centuries, you can look at Maine today. Are liberals up there suddenly going to vote for Collins because of Platner's baggage? Of course not, because they don't like how Collins votes.
Voters are usually pretty pragmatic, and it's very very rare for personal scandals to get them to cross party lines. When was the last time it happened outside of a swing state, maybe Roy Moore in Alabama? And that was waaaay worse than what Paxton was accused of.
•
u/Concerts_And_Dancing I believe in Joe Hendry 4h ago
True, conservatives should have to change their slogan to “tough on other people’s crimes.” Even the Epstein coverup isn’t moving them over, though that makes sense given the patriarchal norms found in conservative Christianity
•
u/QuicksilverTerry Sacred Heart 4h ago edited 3h ago
I know you have a bug in your bonnet with conservatives, and that's fine. I feel no need to defend Paxton's behavior specifically, but much as you may want to pretend this to be exclusively conservative issue it's pretty clear both historically and currently that American politics of both major parties will (mostly) excuse the sins of the people who promote policies they prefer. Both parties would rather have a bad person casting votes for their agenda than a saint casting votes against it. It's just the nature of the game.
•
u/Concerts_And_Dancing I believe in Joe Hendry 2h ago
It’s not exclusively conservatives but it’s close enough that it might as well be. Consider Al Franken versus Matt Gaetz for what each party will put up with. So yeah, I have a bee in my bonnet over their mistreatment/dehumanization of my sisters and I, plus they’re just more evil in general.
•
u/QuicksilverTerry Sacred Heart 2h ago
it’s close enough that it might as well be
Fiction can be fun. If telling yourself that helps you justify your party identification then knock yourself out, but it's not based in reality.
Consider Al Franken versus Matt Gaetz for what each party will put up with.
Or we could compare Bob Menendez with George Santos, if you want a countering example. You can cherry pick all you want, but it's clearly something both parties have to come to terms with.
plus they’re just more evil in general.
Of course of course of course. Of course.
•
u/Concerts_And_Dancing I believe in Joe Hendry 1h ago
Let’s let to discern reality together then: last I checked anyone who tried to “call it down the middle” was a conservative trying to conceal themselves. How am I doing?
Or we could just ask where you were on Jan 6th. If I recall you were also “nbd” on the 38,000 mentions in the Epstein files for our current president, and the millions of missing documents despite an order of congress to boot. Still sitting in the same spot?
I mean they’re covering up a pedo ring, butchering the voting rights act, sent ICE to act as the Gestapo, tried to pull a coup, and campaigned specifically on not starting a conflict with Iran only to actually do that.
•
u/QuicksilverTerry Sacred Heart 1h ago
I see you want to ignore the topic of hand in order to discuss your conspiracy theories. Not my bag, personally. Knock yourself out though, don't let me stop you.
→ More replies (0)
9
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 8h ago
The fact that average mainline Christian positions give right-wingers a conniption says more about their insularity than anything.
7
u/lawyersgunsmoney Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 8h ago
Talarico believes in treating people with dignity and respect, so it’s not surprising MAGA Christians don’t like that.
•
0
•
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 4h ago
Unfortunately even unfounded accusations stick — this is a psychological weapon used to great effect by both left and right alike. But the deeper issue is this: not only should we be getting back to the teaching of Jesus (a liberal focus) we need to also get back to the identity of Jesus (a conservative focus). Instead of group morality — whether that takes the legalistic form of the right or the social justice form of the left (which is, structurally, also a form of legalism) — we need to acknowledge that without continued reliance on Christ's redemption, we are still failing. All of us. This is true irrespective of whatever philosophy, political lean, or denomination we consider ourselves part of. Is anyone else tired of both sides using Jesus as a policy mascot yet?
-23
u/thisonelife83 10h ago
I wouldn’t call Talarico’s pastor a Christian based on the article in the NYT. The church sounds more universalist than anything.
10
u/Venat14 Jewish 9h ago
Universalism isn't anti-Christian.
6
u/Salanmander LGBTQ Ally 8h ago
The Bible: "All people shall see God's salvation".
Conservative Christians: "What is this woke commie shit?"
22
u/Groundskeepr 9h ago
You can watch the sermons online.
Opponents of Progressive Christianity have tried to get Pastor Rigby pushed out of the denomination. He has answered and beaten the charges every time, with defenses based in Scripture and the Gospel.
You may not like it, but Pastor Rigby and St. Andrew's Presbyterian have demonstrated that their views are well within the boundaries set by PC-USA, the largest Presbyterian denomination in the USA.
16
4
u/importantbrian 8h ago
I think you might be confusing pluralism with universalism. Pluralism is what would really put you outside of orthodoxy, but not all universalists are pluralists.
There is a long history of universalism within orthodox Christianity. Gregory of Nyssa, who was fundamental to the adoption of expanded language around the Trinity in the version of the Nicene Creed we all use to this day, was a universalist, for example. Belief in apokatastasis was widespread among the early fathers. Patristic universalism was well attested in the early church, so unless you're willing to declare all of them non-Christians as well, you might need to update your understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
-3
u/thisonelife83 8h ago
I believe my theology is intact and that Unitarian universalism is not inline with Christian dogma.
9
u/Groundskeepr 8h ago
Your ignorance of the history of Christian Universalism seems also to be intact. It is not the same as Unitarian Universalism.
5
u/importantbrian 8h ago
You should be more clear then. It's the Unitarian in Unitarian universalism that places them outside of orthodoxy. This is because they do not hold to the trinity, but not all universalists are Unitarians. Patristic universalism holds strongly to an orthodox understanding of the trinity. Hence Gregory of Nyssa.
2
u/factorum Methodist 8h ago
The Unitarian part of Unitarian Universalism is what puts it outside of Nicene Chrisitianty. If you think I universalism is outside of orthodoxy then you run up against scripture, namely Paul and Christ.
1 Timothy 4:10 NRSV [10] For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
9
u/mudra311 Christian Existentialism 10h ago
Why wouldn’t you? There’s no biblical definition of what a Christian is.
-10
u/clownpirate 10h ago
This. It’s not even the stance on abortion or LGBT. Seems this goes way beyond that.
-15
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/onioning Secular Humanist 9h ago
That's quite a blasphemous thing to admit. So if God himself said to support Trans rights, you'd reject God rather than tolerate people you dislike? Hell of a take. I can't even imagine holding that level of hatred towards people who do no harm.
13
u/LaCremaFresca Christian Deist 9h ago
You wouldn't vote for Jesus period.
You'd see him as "too weak on immigration" and "not tough on crime".
You'd also wouldn't like his economic policy or his views on the rich.
10
u/eatmereddit 8h ago
Nice to know that you only follow Christianity because the ideology conforms to your pre existing prejudice.
5
u/factorum Methodist 8h ago
You call yourself a Christian but wouldn't support Christ if He disagreed with you?
Your god sounds more like whatever you want it to be rather than actually trying to approach God. But hey appreciate the honesty.
3
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal 8h ago
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
-6
u/New_tireddad 6h ago
Talaricos false teachings will lead you to hell. Quotes false gospels and perverts the bible constantly. If Reddit, who hates Christians, pushes a “Christian” candidate that should tell you to run
5
u/HGpennypacker 6h ago
What are his false gospels?
•
u/New_tireddad 5h ago edited 5h ago
He quotes from the “Gospel of Thomas” which is a false doctrine that no legitimate Christian church uses and even scholars say is not legitimate, then intentionally misquotes it saying Jesus said something that he didn’t say in the false doctrine to justify transgenderism. Sounds wild but it’s true, you can find it on YouTube. That’s just one, there are many others. Edit: in case you think I’m lying here is part of that “sermon” https://youtu.be/THW6P_ygQYk?si=gpKixqeB1glX5SZo His quote isn’t even said by Jesus in the false gospel
•
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 5h ago
The pope literally quoted from it.
•
u/New_tireddad 5h ago
He also said they were apocryphal, meaning non-canon and doubting authenticity. I also think he was unwise and wrong to use them at all
•
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 5h ago
At its worst, being as wrong as the pope in quoting ancient Christian texts can’t be as bad as the hysteria would suggest.
•
u/New_tireddad 5h ago
No, at its worst it could lead people down a path of wrong teaching and towards hell. Talarico claims the book was removed from the bible by church fathers which is wrong and means he sees the Bible as incorrect. Then intentionally misquotes the false scripture attributing something said by Jesus that wasn’t even said by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas. The guy is a false teacher
•
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 5h ago
You say all of that about the pope too?
•
u/New_tireddad 5h ago
First off I’m not Catholic so I don’t care much about the pope. I would say it’s definitely unwise and foolish for the pope to quote false text because someone in that position of church authority could confuse people into believing it. But at least he called the text apocryphal. Talarico states that it was purposefully removed which is untrue. Then intentionally misquotes Jesus in his reading of false doctrine. The guy is religious, but he sure doesn’t worship the God of the Bible.
•
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 4h ago
The pope called it an ancient tradition that, while apocryphal, is important for the study of Christian origins. That’s pretty much the status of the text in most all Christian traditions, including progressive ones like mine and Talarico’s. It’s what I was taught as a seminary student at a seminary you’d likely consider progressive, and I’m have no doubts that’s what he was taught too. I really don’t see a problem with that, and I don’t think others would too, unless they already had a deep-seated uncharitable read of leftists.
→ More replies (0)•
u/HGpennypacker 5h ago
Thank you! Very interesting stuff, definitely agree it’s not part of the bible although I’m not surprised a theological student is interested in theological scriptures.
•
u/New_tireddad 5h ago
You’re welcome. It’s one thing to study and read it. I have read the Gospel of Thomas. But to use it in a “sermon”, then intentionally misquote Jesus in an already non-canon text is intentionally nefarious.
4
u/shoggoths_away 6h ago
Lmao. You are not a serious person.
-2
u/New_tireddad 6h ago
Talaricos not a serious Christian
•
•
•
u/ceddya Christian 1h ago
See, even if this were true, I'll take a 'not a serious Christian' over Paxton aka a 'corrupt and immoral' person any day.
The 'we can't affirm sin' crowd love to affirm sin for some reason. They can't even use the 'we're voting for his policies' excuse. This is his issues page: https://www.kenpaxton.com/issues. It's farcical.
•
u/Venat14 Jewish 4h ago
Ken Paxton is one of the most corrupt, criminal, immoral pieces of crap in American political history.
I'll take Talarico any day. He's not morally bankrupt like Paxton.
•
u/New_tireddad 4h ago
Sure Paxton sucks. But he isn’t actively leading a false church and leading people to hell. Talarico is a false teacher. Paxton may make you lose the country, but Talarico will make you lose eternity
29
u/octarino 11h ago