Jump to content

NWBuck

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    4239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NWBuck

  1. On 5/22/2018 at 8:32 AM, Lagunamadre said:

    Does anybody on here believe in predestination? I would love to have  civil debate on that, if so. 

    I don't, but only because it was foreordained that I wouldn't. 

  2. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    "Tell me Johnny, and be honest:  which historical college football powerhouse owns your ass?"

    "That's right... Texas. I'd also accept Ohio State." 

  3. 1 hour ago, DougO said:

    When I see one of these interview shows where they pretend to keep talking after the mic cuts off and credits roll, I am really curious about what they are saying. Are they just faking it? Are they talking about the show they just did, maybe talking to the crew off the set, perhaps saying rude things on purpose because they know they won't be heard, or was there another great question/response that the viewer got screwed out of?

     

    • Like 1
  4. 16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    IMO mysterious sudden “suicides” that involve people wrapped up in events that involve a whole lot of money and power are either staged where the killer is someone who knows how to make it look like a suicide, or the victim is given a choice of committing suicide, or else in the alternative if they won’t agree to the other options their family or loved ones (whoever that may be) gets it much much worse (and then they are killed anyway).  Nobody would choose option 3 so instead they commit “suicide.”

    Been going on forever. Nothing new under the sun. 

     

  5. 13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Iran-Contra doesn’t get enough air play but there are reasons for it, as stupid as they might be. 

    1. It’s a complicated scandal.

    Involving Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, hostages, weapons, Honduras, and Nicaragua.  It’s not easy for the average American to digest the enormity of the scandal and it’s implications.  Unfortunately, it’s a scandal that left many Americans asking, “why should I give a shit about this?”  

     

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  6. 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.

  7. 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)

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    • Like 1
  11. 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.

    • Like 6
×
×
  • Create New...