Jump to content
Washpark

Evangelical Christians

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Christianity this side of the millennial kingdom was never meant to be the popular choice.  it's supposed to be counter-cultural.  it's supposed to be radical.  and the Bible is exceedingly clear, few actually live and follow the true way.

Yup. Things went to heck in a hand basket when Constantine co-opted Christianity. Heck, I tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

"blessed are the poor in spirit" and "blessed are those who mourn" speak to the realization of a Christian's depravity and the subsequent recognition of divine grace to be rescued.  by definition a Christian knows he is a human wreck.  

as evidenced from that first quote i think it's also influenced by non-Christians believing Christians should be different - which isn't wrong in that Jesus commands us to be holy-  and then ridiculing Christians when we're not perfect.  

I find those that self-identify as "Evangelical Christians" are the most judgmental about everyone else not the other way around.  I'm sure that there many (or most) Evangelical Christians are not judgmental about others, but I also imagine those are people that keep their faith to themselves and don't proclaim it as a badge of honor.   

FYI, if someone of another faith acts like the above, I dismiss them just as much.  

Coleman in Trading Places: Religion is a good thing, I say, taken in moderation.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I've related this before, but might as well relate it again.

I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools until I went to college.  My wife and I visited and spent time at several protestant congregations before settling on a denomination that we're both heavily involved with nowadays.  I grew up in a heavily Jewish part of town, and ran around with a bunch of Jewish families.  I grew up in multicultural Houston, and spent a good amount of time with people from an even broader swath of cultures and faith.

Without question, the MEANEST people I have ever had to deal with in my life have been the showy type of "evangelical Christians."  And I don't just mean once or twice, I mean consistently.  From nearly 50 years of data-gathering, if you were to ask me which cultural and faith demographic in this country is just plain the meanest, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you 'fundagelicals."  And now, we see the culmination of the marriage of that "faith" and politics in a political movement that CELEBRATES meanness, name-calling, etc.

If Christianity was a "product," then the folks who have most loudly claimed the "brand" have all but destroyed its reputation among all of the kind of folks we'd like to see consuming it.  In short, if you're a kind, decent person, living "the way" that the Gospels teach (because that's what Christianity is -- it's a WAY -- it's not a magic ticket where you just shout "I love Jesus!" and you're in)....then you want NOTHING to do with the current brand.

And now, I think that might be okay.  Christianity destroyed itself by becoming a cult of worship of self, and its institutions.  If they all fall and burn, let them.  The Gospel will survive.  The way will survive.  And we'll start over.

Exactly. You want to experience some "mean" people, attend an evangelical private school as the child of a single mom. No emulation of Jesus or his teachings there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

OK- lots of thoughts here, and they may not be linear. What else is new.

  • "Evangelical" has become synonymous with "religious right" or "moral majority" in the common nomenclature. This is due, in part, to oversimplification on the part of the media. I don't see this as a "lubral conspiraceee", but as a way to talk about an issue or a group of people in a soundbite culture. We do the same with "Catholics" and "Muslims" and "Aggies" (although that latter one is probably dead on).
  • Doing so, though, denies that a good number of persons of color who are Christians hold to a faith that would meet all of the markers of "Evangelicalism". And, many Latino, Asian, and African American Christians that I know would have called themselves evangelical prior to 2016.
  • The post-election discussion of evangelical voting rates, though, pushed many of these people away from doing this. First, media reports conflated "evangelical" with "white evangelical" and disregarded these other voices. Additionally, Christians of color looked at their white "family" and have said "Nope", and moved away from the label that personified both. Rightfully so.
  • As has been mentioned here, there are a lot of people who would consider themselves liberal/left/progressive/democrats and also evangelicals (although they too are stepping away from that nomenclature). This includes a number of prominent Christian authors and speakers, including white folks (Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis, Rachel Held Evans). Here's an interesting book on this discussion.
  • While the 2016 election has obviously been a significant event in this process, I would also highlight that the 2000 election (hanging chads and all) led to some of the foundations for the current state of affairs. W's "Compassionate Conservatism" and evangelical faith became a target for people frustrated with the election's results. The events of 9/11 also exacerbated this: the anti-muslim sentiment and the seeming hypocrisy of "compassionate conservatism" rushing the nation into War certainly didn't help.
  • Finally, I think it's important to point out that while "evangelicalism" (as it means "religious right") may not be synonymous with white nationalism, there's an enormous legacy of racism at the core of the evangelical engagement with politics. This article is a great summary: Real Origins of the Religious RightThe "pro-life" plank that everyone points to was a secondary element to this political move... the primary motivators were segregation and money.  'Merica.

That's all I've got... I'll go back to my regularly scheduled non-sequiturs over in the Lulz forum now.

This shouldn’t get missed at the bottom of the previous page 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, relapse98 said:

They brought it upon themselves. When their "leaders" are guys like Robert Jeffress and Billy Graham Jr., then you get what you get.

That's like blaming all Texans for aggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I find those that self-identify as "Evangelical Christians" are the most judgmental about everyone else not the other way around.  I'm sure that there many (or most) Evangelical Christians are not judgmental about others, but I also imagine those are people that keep their faith to themselves and don't proclaim it as a badge of honor.   

Yeah, unfortunately one of the hallmarks of evangelicalism is being against something. Given its roots in fundamentalism and its historically reactionary nature, this shouldn't be a surprise.  Being counter-cultural ("In the world but not of the world") quickly gets corrupted to closed-set ideologies that is all about defining "us" and "them", sinners and saints.

Me? I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints... sinners are much more fun.

Edited by NWBuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This shouldn’t get missed at the bottom of the previous page 

Yeah.  I was going to point out that the vast majority of minority churches are evangelical, and things like MLK50 are evangelical events.

There's evangelicals and then there's evangelicals.  The religous right is not a majority or even prominent group within the evangelical sects.  I lump it in the same group as prosperity gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of "persecution," I think there is a growing sense of antagonism towards Evangelical, Christian, middle America. Evangelical leaders are all too happy to fan these flames, but the antagonism is there. I'd say that the premise of this thread is pretty good example of that. Take a valid critique of a group - White Evangelical Christians voted largely for a staggeringly immoral president - and turn it into a claim of their white nationalism. That isn't quite persecution, but there's a disdain and contempt that's slowly permeating the culture. You might not care or you might want to gaslight it ("look at those self-righteous Christians claiming persecution because they can't always get their way"), but it's there.

Sometimes I think it all comes back to abortion, but I think it's more personal than that.

On Evangelical views of abortion, I found this interesting: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

"blessed are the poor in spirit" and "blessed are those who mourn" speak to the realization of a Christian's depravity and the subsequent recognition of divine grace to be rescued.  by definition a Christian knows he is a human wreck.  

as evidenced from that first quote i think it's also influenced by non-Christians believing Christians should be different - which isn't wrong in that Jesus commands us to be holy-  and then ridiculing Christians when we're not perfect.  

Well there's no way people are going to be holy. Try and treat your fellow men how you'd like to be treated is about as good as we can get on any scale.  That really has nothing to do with religion per se, and more to do with respect of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think the Democratic Party as an institution is pro-Christian.  Nor do I think it is anti-Christian or anti-religion.  I think there are Democrats who may be anti-religion, but that isn't reflected either in the party's platform or in its officeholders.  And there are a lot more Democrats who are practicing Christians.

The conclusion that the Democratic Party is "anti-Christian," however, reflects an idiosyncrasy of modern evangelical Christianity--they honestly think that anything other than total obsequiousness to their goals constitutes persecution.  If you're not 100% in agreement with their agenda--many aspects of which most people in America find odious--then you're "anti-Christian."  So from that weird point of view that has nothing to do with reality, ok--yeah, maybe the Democratic Party is "anti-Christian."

Yeah, not trying to paint a broad brush stroke at all on all democrats, but when you look at rhetoric from both parties, there are differences how each party looks at , embraces and (seemingly) supports, courts christians that are apparent.

Just because you embrace them doesn't make you a better party either, especially if you don't live up to those ideals you profess to embrace and support.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that seems to characterize the modern "evangelical" Christian is that the churches are "non-denominational."  Even the denominations associated with "evangelicals," Southern Baptist and Church of Christ, are highly congregational, meaning the minister, appointed by the congregation, is the "last word" or the last human word, on almost everything.

So, that tends to create a greater echo chamber effect than often exists in more traditional hierarchical churches with regional and national, and international governing bodies.  I find that these governing bodies frequently bring a broader perspective to local congregations and provide better thought leadership in matters both religious and secular.

Strangely, Jewish temples are extremely congregational, yet, outside of Hasidic and ultra-conservative sects, don't seem to suffer quite the same echo chamber effect as congregational Christian churches.  On the other hand, Muslim groups suffer from the congregational problem significantly and it seems that the lack of established churches with hierarchies, the equivalent of Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. causes them huge problems.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shenanigans said:

No lol. I feel that they are pretty neutral when it comes to religion. Far from being ANTI-christian.

Let me re phrase, a large enough segment of the DNC is anti christian, IMO and it comes thru in rhetoric fairly consistently from those wings of the party.

I don't believe the party as a whole is anti christian at all, but DNC party positions do fly in the face of what many christians believe at times.  Abortion being chief among them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who grew up Baptist, I'll weight in on this.  You have to understand that their outlook on the world is an extension of their view on the Bible, which is a melodrama going back and forth between good and evil that will culminate in an apocalyptic event where the good guys win.  There is no nuance.  It's black and white with no gray.  So, as they see the world, it's a drama in constant conflict.  (They're drama queens.)  The end game is the other side isn't simply the "other side," they're actually evil.  It really doesn't matter if it's Hillary Clinton or Obama. They'd say the same about Biden when you take away the race and gender angles.  It also doesn't matter who is on their team.  Every election has the balance of the universe in question.  They voted for a child molester in Alabama because babies might die!

Also, it keeps them entertained, if you think about it.  There's drama everywhere not unlike a teenager with a video game.  Just turn on TV and you'll hear how city council elections are a battle for America or something.

On a larger scale, though, they're not the dominant political force of yesteryear and it's not close.  They're more of a transactional voting block now and by that I mean if a candidate can get them theirs, that's all they need.  They're like the unions in that regard.  Just get me what I can and the details of the candidate don't matter.  The only difference is they've been draping themselves in morality for decades.  

The truth is they've always been the most pliable voting block in America.  They were against divorce until Reagan, against draft dodging until Bush, against fun babies until Palin, thought Mormons were a cult until Romney, and against everything until Trump.  They'll believe whatever they're told.  (If only Wulaw and Escriva were still here to tell us how principled they are.)  All you really have to do is merely say you're pro-choice and they give you a pass for everything else.

On the subject of abortion, you're right in that it's a little more complex but it's not.  They say that issue is their deal breaker but would they vote for a pro-life Democrat?  Most of them would decidedly not.  So, they say it's what makes them Republicans but there are certainly other factors.  The Democrats know this, too.  They know by running a pro life Democrat, they'd lose far more voters than they'd gain.  The evangelicals will just want to vote Republican but they need some issue to dial up the melodrama (see Paragraph One).  It makes them think they're fighting some cosmic battle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the things that seems to characterize the modern "evangelical" Christian is that the churches are "non-denominational."  Even the denominations associated with "evangelicals," Southern Baptist and Church of Christ, are highly congregational, meaning the minister, appointed by the congregation, is the "last word" or the last human word, on almost everything.

So, that tends to create a greater echo chamber effect than often exists in more traditional hierarchical churches with regional and national, and international governing bodies.  I find that these governing bodies frequently bring a broader perspective to local congregations and provide better thought leadership in matters both religious and secular.

Strangely, Jewish temples are extremely congregational, yet, outside of Hasidic and ultra-conservative sects, don't seem to suffer quite the same echo chamber effect as congregational Christian churches.  On the other hand, Muslim groups suffer from the congregational problem significantly.

That's a really good angle.  I never thought of it that way.  I'm Methodist now but grew up Baptist and that's a definite difference but I just never thought of it that way.

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

That's a really good angle.  I never thought of it that way.  I'm Methodist now but grew up Baptist and that's a definite difference but I just never thought of it that way.

Good point.

Yours is highly valid as well.  I think the congregational nature means that the congregation finds their issues, or drama, or squeal points kind of together, with a lack of outside perspective, and that makes them highly vulnerable to pandering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the things that seems to characterize the modern "evangelical" Christian is that the churches are "non-denominational."  Even the denominations associated with "evangelicals," Southern Baptist and Church of Christ, are highly congregational, meaning the minister, appointed by the congregation, is the "last word" or the last human word, on almost everything.

So, that tends to create a greater echo chamber effect than often exists in more traditional hierarchical churches with regional and national, and international governing bodies.  I find that these governing bodies frequently bring a broader perspective to local congregations and provide better thought leadership in matters both religious and secular.

Exactly! And, given that evangelicalism is very individualistic (my understanding of scripture, my relationship with Jesus, etc.), there's not the ability to recognize systemic problems or consider perspectives that challenge the preconceived interpretations/understandings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, F250 said:

That's like blaming all Texans for aggy.

Or all Muslims for Islamic terrorism. 

Show me 1,000 different Christians and I'll show you 1,000 different versions of Christianity. Look at the complexity and heterogeneity within the religion most of us know the best because that's how we were indoctrinated and raised. We'll disagree on a lot of things and none of us are qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject. And even those who are, those who've spent their entire lives in the mastery of the subject, can't agree.

There is no unanimity of interpretation in any religion. We would do well to understand that there is as much diversity in all faiths as there is within whichever one we call our own. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

and why do you think that is?

evangelical is what christ calls christians to be. spread the good news and all that. 

but what evangelicals have become in america is something very different, especially when we approach it from a political standpoint. it's become a self-identified voting bloc, and, similarly to traditional black churches, preach politics from the pulpit.

but also, this is why:

trump is a horrible, odious, sinful entity. he's the polar opposite from evangelical christian. and yet they've warped their world view to support him. it's uncanny. and it's part of the reason that evangelical has become a dirty word. it's because evangelicals like to lie in the dirt. they played themselves.

Lot of broad brushes in here. I can’t stand Trump. I don’t know one of my buddies that doesn’t think he’s a total assclown. The ones that voted for him all held their nose. I’d never vote for him. Anyway, we are all evangelicals, that also hate Jeffress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of abortion, what else in the DNC flies in the face of Christianity? I would think the RNC support of capital punishment is just as big of a transgression for those who identify as "pro-life"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

It’s bizarro world.  I never dreamed we’d see such moral gymnastics from white “Christians.”

You’d have a hard time inventing a less Christ-like figure than Trump.  He brags, he insults, he is utterly divorced from facts or truth.  He mocks disabled people.  He loves violence.  He really, really loves violence against Brown people.  

He cheats at business.  He is obsessed with money, especially as a substitute for morality to keep score and assign human beings value and worth. 

His mouth is a constant stream of insults and threats.  He lives to bully and belittle   

He brags about serially sexually assaulting women, and passes it off as locker room talk as though he said it as a 15-year old kid and not a 60-something year old grandfather with a pregnant wife back home.  

He repeatedly sexualizes his own daughter, speaking of her sexually starting even when she was a child   

He breaks the vows of marriage without the tiniest hint of guilt or shame.  He seeks out pornstars and playmates for serial affairs and then sends goons to intimidate them into silence. 

He says kind things about actual, uniform-wearing, flag-waving, hate-filled Nazis days after one of them used a car to murder a civilian.  

He knows fucking ZERO about Christianity   He doesn’t know how to pronounce “Two Corinthians.”   He repeatedly fails in interviews to name a favorite bible verse... and in one interview, he referred to “the one about bending to envy,” which, not surprisingly, does not exist   

His actions are in every way the exact opposite of what Christ taught - humility, kindness, integrity, and service to your fellow man   

 

One would've expected the Great Deceiver to appear in a more attractive form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Anyway, we are all evangelicals, that also hate Jeffress. 

And yet, he is still the spokesperson for the evangelical movement.

I think Jeffress is Southern Baptist and I really cannot recall a single statement or article by anyone affiliated with that denomination denouncing him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

Outside of abortion, what else in the DNC flies in the face of Christianity? I would think the RNC support of capital punishment is just as big of a transgression for those who identify as "pro-life"

"Without capital punishment, we wouldn't have a savior crucified for our sins..."

(real thing that an evangelical minister said to me when I asked that same question)

Edited by NWBuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The open support of torture and the new policy of separating immigrant children from their parents are pretty "un-Christian." I strongly doubt you'd find stronger levels of support for either of those than in the white evangelical community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

And yet, he is still the spokesperson for the evangelical movement.

I think Jeffress is Southern Baptist and I really cannot recall a single statement or article by anyone affiliated with that denomination denouncing him. 

Why would the leader of the UMC, for example, ever legitimize that idiot by commenting on him?  What he says are so far from the institutional beliefs of HPUMC (my church) that I pay him no mind. He is not the spokesperson; nor do I consider my faith a movement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Why would the leader of the UMC, for example, ever legitimize that idiot by commenting on him?  What he says are so far from the institutional beliefs of HPUMC (my church) that I pay him no mind. He is not the spokesperson; nor do I consider my faith a movement.  

You may evangelize, but you don't fit the modern definition of evangelical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F250 said:

That's like blaming all Texans for aggy.

 

This is a great analogy. We do a hell of a fine job in this country of lumping shitty people in with others "like them" when in most cases they are the exception to the rule just happen to be the most vocal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You may evangelize, but you don't fit the modern definition of evangelical.

That’s the modern definition’s fault. I am an evangelical. We are not a monolith. Ha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

This is a great analogy. We do a hell of a fine job in this country of lumping shitty people in with others "like them" when in most cases they are the exception to the rule just happen to be the most vocal. 

Are you saying aggy draw attention to themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

That's a really good angle.  I never thought of it that way.  I'm Methodist now but grew up Baptist and that's a definite difference but I just never thought of it that way.

Good point.

That's a huge difference. As Methodists we are all bound to the Articles of Faith, Book of Discipline and the General Rules of Methodist Societies. Since we are not congregationalists we can't individually create interpretations like the Baptists. This is why Methodists have remained distinctly Arminian while the Baptists have morphed into a theologically unsustainable amalgamation of Arminian-Calvinism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Let me re phrase, a large enough segment of the DNC is anti christian, IMO and it comes thru in rhetoric fairly consistently from those wings of the party.

I don't believe the party as a whole is anti christian at all, but DNC party positions do fly in the face of what many christians believe at times.  Abortion being chief among them.

If you are atheist/agnostic there is a 95% chance you would mainly vote for Democrats. That doesn't mean all democrats are anti-christian, but if your anti-christian you are likely a democrat. 

Under the same line of reasoning, all republicans aren't racist/homophobic/xenophobic BUT if you're a racist/homophobe/xenophobe there is a 99% chance you vote republican.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

If you are atheist/agnostic there is a 95% chance you would mainly vote for Democrats. That doesn't mean all democrats are anti-christian, but if your anti-christian you are likely a democrat. 

Hmmm... I don't know about that. Small sample size and so forth, but I believe that a number of atheist/agnostics might be libertarians (small government folks) and vote Republican for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

This is a great analogy. We do a hell of a fine job in this country of lumping shitty people in with others "like them" when in most cases they are the exception to the rule just happen to be the most vocal. 

Except that it's not the exceptions when we're discussing white evangelicals that makes them look bad. Here's an old blog post based on a poll of support for torture among religious groups (it's from 2009 so the link to the poll itself no longer works, but the results are included in the post):

Quote
  • 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants said torture of a suspect could be often or sometimes justified.
  • 51 percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics said torture could be justified.
  • 46 percent of white mainline Protestants were willing to justify torture.
  • 40 percent of the religiously unaffiliated chimed in to agree to justify torture.

62% of white evangelical protestants in 2009 supported torture. I doubt that number has gone down. I tried to find some polling on the new policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, but couldn't find any. But does anyone think there are any religious or non-religious groups in America that support this policy more strongly than white evangelicals? 

I posted a poll on page 1 showing that 69% of white evangelicals would prefer Donald Trump to another Republican candidate. Meaning that they prefer Trump to another candidate that would most likely be essentially the same on abortion, contraception, sex education, etc. Why then, do nearly 7 in 10 white evangelicals prefer Trump to a presumably more Christian person who would have the same positions on the policies that they pretend (sometimes even to themselves) motivate them? It's his cruelty against those they deem to be the "other." 65-70% of white evangelicals are stupid, resentful, viciously cruel pieces of shit. The good ones are the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Hmmm... I don't know about that. Small sample size and so forth, but I believe that a number of atheist/agnostics might be libertarians (small government folks) and vote Republican for that reason.

Pretty heavy left lean for non-believers, according to pew. (the 99% figure was hyberbole) 

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people dislike the idea of people running the governement and making decisions that effect millions of lives based on what an extraterrestrial being in the sky who watches over them tells them to do. 

The problem is that extraterrestrial being has never once manifested itself to society as a whole to explain it's wishes. What you end up with is a group of people justifying whatever action they choose to take by filtering it through the mental lens of "this is what God tells me to do." Anyone should be able to see how that is extremely flawed thinking and can cause major problems yet it is what republicans do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing about evangelicals is how they are driving people away from Christianity.  

Quote

But the rate of growth varied considerably from state to state—and not in the way one might predict. "Rising 'none' rates are more common in Republican states in this period," they report.

To determine why, the researchers measured the political clout of Christian right organizations in each state (utilizing the expertise of journalists and scholars). They also noted when and where these groups sponsored high-profile initiatives—usually ballot measures to prohibit gay marriage.

The researchers found that, while such efforts were often successful, they created a backlash "that did not redound to the benefit of organized religion in general." They estimate that, in states where such campaigns—and their backers—were widely publicized and debated, "religion lost somewhere between 2 and 8 percent of the population."

 

https://psmag.com/news/is-the-christian-right-driving-americans-away-from-religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's his cruelty against those they deem to be the "other." 65-70% of white evangelicals are stupid, resentful, viciously cruel pieces of shit.

 

Rage on with your culture war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, F250 said:

That's a huge difference. As Methodists we are all bound to the Articles of Faith, Book of Discipline and the General Rules of Methodist Societies. Since we are not congregationalists we can't individually create interpretations like the Baptists. This is why Methodists have remained distinctly Arminian while the Baptists have morphed into a theologically unsustainable amalgamation of Arminian-Calvinism.

Fucking heretics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mole said:

Rage on with your culture war.

How are decent people supposed to react when confronted with evil? Tolerate it?

I'm agnostic but have no problem with anyone who uses religion to improve themselves. In other words, if it helps you live a happier life and treat others better, that's great. If your faith motivates you to give to charity, to feed the hungry, etc., that's great, and I don't really care if a part of your motivation is a belief that you will be rewarded by a greater being in an afterlife. If your faith helps you cope with the loss of a loved one, fantastic, I'm glad it works for you.

However, if your faith is merely justification for cruelty, then fuck you. No group of believers can claim not to have some of those types within their groups, but no group is dominated by cruelty like white evangelicals (particularly their southern branches). The fact that they take any disagreement with them as somehow equivalent to throwing them to the lions is annoying as hell too, but most manage to somehow make that one of their less awful qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Why then, do nearly 7 in 10 white evangelicals prefer Trump to a presumably more Christian person who would have the same positions on the policies that they pretend (sometimes even to themselves) motivate them? It's his cruelty against those they deem to be the "other." 

Sadly, I think this is true, and I think it's why his approval didn't go to zero (as it should have) after he spent a considerable amount of time and energy repeatedly mocking and attacking actual blood-spilling patriots like John McCain and the Khizr Khan family.

It should have also gone to zero for mocking Serge Kovaleski:  "Have you seen this guy?" (cheers)  Contorts hands, imitates physical deformity.  (laughter and cheers).  

Later, Trump tweeted at Kovaleski to "stop using his disability to grandstand."

Exuberantly cheering for a person who relentlessly displays that kind of cruelty... it's deplorable.  

It's certainly not very Christ-like, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

How are decent people supposed to react when confronted with evil? Tolerate it?

I'm agnostic but have no problem with anyone who uses religion to improve themselves. In other words, if it helps you live a happier life and treat others better, that's great. If your faith motivates you to give to charity, to feed the hungry, etc., that's great, and I don't really care if a part of your motivation is a belief that you will be rewarded by a greater being in an afterlife. If your faith helps you cope with the loss of a loved one, fantastic, I'm glad it works for you.

However, if your faith is merely justification for cruelty, then fuck you. No group of believers can claim not to have some of those types within their groups, but no group is dominated by cruelty like white evangelicals (particularly their southern branches). The fact that they take any disagreement with them as somehow equivalent to throwing them to the lions is annoying as hell too, but most manage to somehow make that one of their less awful qualities.

1

You'd make a fine Baptist preacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mole said:

Rage on with your culture war.

 

20 minutes ago, Mole said:

You'd make a fine Baptist preacher.

Well, we almost made it to 3 pages without some dickeater ruining the discussion. New record, guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The thing that's supposed to be radical is the whole "love your fellow man" thing. The goal isn't to be "radical" no matter what is considered radical for the times. NAMBLA is radical. Should evangelicals support NAMBLA?

i wasn't making the assertion Christians should find something to be radical about and then swim towards that goal.  the tenets of faith Jesus and the apostles laid out do not change over time.  they were laid out 2000+ years ago.  they were liberal and counter-cultural then and they still are today. 

 

what should make Christians radical:

- loving God through obedience

- loving your neighbor

- living a pure life above reproach, set apart as a part of the physical manifestation of Jesus, his church

- having faith, joy, and hope in all circumstances

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well there's no way people are going to be holy. Try and treat your fellow men how you'd like to be treated is about as good as we can get on any scale.  That really has nothing to do with religion per se, and more to do with respect of others.

 

we can't be holy by ourselves, that's made clear many times over.  the more we submit to God's sanctifying work of the Spirit in us the more He changes us.  submission and sanctification is an ongoing process involving prayer, meditation, and scripture.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the things that seems to characterize the modern "evangelical" Christian is that the churches are "non-denominational."  Even the denominations associated with "evangelicals," Southern Baptist and Church of Christ, are highly congregational, meaning the minister, appointed by the congregation, is the "last word" or the last human word, on almost everything.

So, that tends to create a greater echo chamber effect than often exists in more traditional hierarchical churches with regional and national, and international governing bodies.  I find that these governing bodies frequently bring a broader perspective to local congregations and provide better thought leadership in matters both religious and secular.

Strangely, Jewish temples are extremely congregational, yet, outside of Hasidic and ultra-conservative sects, don't seem to suffer quite the same echo chamber effect as congregational Christian churches.  On the other hand, Muslim groups suffer from the congregational problem significantly and it seems that the lack of established churches with hierarchies, the equivalent of Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. causes them huge problems.

i think that's true to an extent.  a lot of ND churches are megachurches with many campuses accounting for hundreds of thousands of members in the US alone.  still other ND churches actually belong to a convention or denomination but still call themselves ND.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to say a few more things:

It was only a 5% shift of white evangelical voters from Obama to Trump, and it came largely from independents and democrats.  These voters don't exactly meet the stereotype being suggested.

It was also hardly just evangelicals, the shifts among catholics (9%) was nearly double.

I'd say the shift in voting is not because the religious embrace Trump; it's because Clinton is so disliked by them.

 

I'd give these reasons for Clinton being a terrible religious candidate:

The majority (60%) of Americans believe religious liberty is on the decline.  The GOP does a good job of echoing that concern.  The Democrats have: the Little Sisters of the Poor, "clinging to religion," "deplorables," suing churches and ministers to force gay marriages, the list goes on... Clinton even launched her campaign from Four Freedoms Park and left out the "second freedom" from her speech.

Any amount of humantarianism she has is seen as secular progressive.  The village to raise a child, works-based salvation, her views on abortion of course.

Her campaign didn't perform religious outreach.  She hired an outreach coordinator very late in the campaign, she cancelled her St Patrick's day event, speeches at churchs or conventions?

Its not just Hillary.  Part of it is her constituency.  After her father died is one of the rare times she talked openly about her personal religious views.  Her base blasted her for it.  That might be why she left it out of her campaign.

Obama and the DNC also left her a terrible legacy. There is very real hostility toward religous freedom on the Democratic side.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at an evagelical christian identity politics thread being what draws out rex kramer into cloak room posting...when his entire schtick here is trying to personify the low-character, frat douche piece of shit self-aggrandizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sidis said:

lol at an evagelical christian identity politics thread being what draws out rex kramer into cloak room posting...when his entire schtick here is trying to personify the low-character, frat douche piece of shit self-aggrandizer.

Maybe his internet persona and how he interacts with people in real life is not the same thing.  I would hope that is true for pretty much everyone who posts here.

He does not bother me.

Edited by Johnny Sack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Maybe his internet persona and him in real life is not the same thing.  I would hope that is true for pretty much everyone who posts here. 

shtick
SHtik/
noun
informal
noun: schtick
  1. a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc., associated with a particular person.
    "there are many great comics who have based their stand-up shtick on observational comedy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...