Evangelical Christians

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I gather, he's simply stating the results of polls. So if anyone is "painting Christians in a bad light" it is the Christians themselves. Whether or not you like to believe it, evidently the results show that there are many
Christians who support the "death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governm ...[text shortened]... ehemently opposed to it. I was really taken aback by just how strongly she opposed it.

I don't care, you can give polls to any block of people that does not at
all mean that the FULL block of those people feel the way he was painting
them. To suggest it as he did was an ugly thing to do, whatever school that
guys teaches I pity the kids who listen to him.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care, you can give polls to any block of people that does not at
all mean that the FULL block of those people feel the way he was painting
them. To suggest it as he did was an ugly thing to do, whatever school that
guys teaches I pity the kids who listen to him.
Kelly

Zuckerman never claimed that the "Full block of those people" share those views. Not sure where you're getting lost. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of reading things in context. Or perhaps you don't understand polls. But the fact is, "...if anyone is 'painting Christians in a bad light' it is the Christians themselves." You can say that you "don't care", but it is what it is.

Was it you who said he supported the death penalty?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Came across the following by Phil Zuckerman a professor of sociology in California. Looking past the provocative title, what he has to say is generally consistent with the views of Evangelical Christians I have spoken with. Anyone care to share their insights as to what they think is going on?

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. /www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html

Did Jesus really unambiguously preach mercy and forgiveness? Here's the passage everyone seems to ignore or forget:

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

This isn't the only one. There are other, vaguer parables in which those who have failed Jesus in some manner are cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth". Zuckerman mentions the possibility of eternal hell, but fails to properly attribute it to Jesus. By this omission, he makes it sound like the whole concept of everlasting hell was something conjured up by the overactive imaginations of evangelicals.

So many non-Christians talk of Jesus as if he taught nothing but good things. How do they deal with passages like this one? It's high time they wake up and realize that the evangelicals may have a point here. Jesus taught forgiveness and mercy during your short time on earth, and eternal punishment with no hope of mercy thereafter.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Did Jesus really unambiguously preach mercy and forgiveness? Here's the passage everyone seems to ignore or forget:[quote]41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 during your short time on earth, and eternal punishment with no hope of mercy thereafter.

Therefore, the choice is up to the individual. Does he/she want forgiveness and
mercy or eternal punishment with no hope of mercy thereafter.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what this is supposed to be directed at. Perhaps where Zuckerman says the following?:
"Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture."

It is mercy and forgiveness to those who will repent of their sins and turn from
their evil ways and put their faith in Christ. But for the murderer, adulterer, liar,
and the wicked it is eternal punishment of the worst kind imaginable.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But for the murderer, adulterer, liar,
and the wicked it is eternal punishment of the worst kind imaginable.

nonsense it is punishment for those who don't believe in god and worship god and 'reward'
[although frankly heaven as described sounds like torture to me] for those who do believe in
god and worship god.

As long as you repent and believe and worship god it doesn't matter one jot what 'sins' you
have committed.

Also I am impressed with how distorted and destroyed your morality is that you list adulterer and
liar along with Murderer as your three sins of choice.

One of these is not like the other two... Can you tell which it is?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
my analysis of it shows that the cause was allowing the church to attain political power. it appears historically that the church was hijacked by political entities and those who upheld their original christian principles were massacred.

there has been many attempts to reform the church, but eventually they (or most of them) end up falling in the same ...[text shortened]... ed detached form politics and those are the closest to the ideal christianity that you can find.

stating that these characteristics are the result of politicisation i dont think is enough,
after all, there were also other Christians who through the political process achieved
some rather admirable things, one thinks of the abolition movement, hospital and
prison reform etc, no there is something else at work here.

Originally posted by googlefudge
nonsense it is punishment for those who don't believe in god and worship god and 'reward'
[although frankly heaven as described sounds like torture to me] for those who do believe in
god and worship god.

As long as you repent and believe and worship god it doesn't matter one jot what 'sins' you
have committed.

Also I am impressed with ...[text shortened]... ree sins of choice.

One of these is not like the other two... Can you tell which it is?

Sin is disobeying God. So why should it matter what one does to disobey God.
Whatever it is, the result is still sin. Christ said all sin can be forgiven except
sin against the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sin is disobeying God. So why should it matter what one does to disobey God.
Whatever it is, the result is still sin. Christ said all sin can be forgiven except
sin against the Holy Spirit.

God doesn't exist and thus neither does sin.

However if god exists I am not prepared to accept 'god commands it' as any sort of moral value.

Morality is and must be independent of gods and so there commands may or may-not be moral
just as anyone else's may or may-not be moral.

The god you describe is simply an egomaniac petty dictator worthy only of contempt.

Originally posted by googlefudge
God doesn't exist and thus neither does sin.

However if god exists I am not prepared to accept 'god commands it' as any sort of moral value.

Morality is and must be independent of gods and so there commands may or may-not be moral
just as anyone else's may or may-not be moral.

The god you describe is simply an egomaniac petty dictator worthy only of contempt.

more unsubstantiated mere opinion masquerading as something of substance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more unsubstantiated mere opinion masquerading as something of substance.

You know that might sting if you had any credibility or substance yourself.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Did Jesus really unambiguously preach mercy and forgiveness? Here's the passage everyone seems to ignore or forget:[quote]41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 during your short time on earth, and eternal punishment with no hope of mercy thereafter.

Did Jesus really unambiguously preach mercy and forgiveness?...Jesus taught forgiveness and mercy during your short time on earth, and eternal punishment with no hope of mercy thereafter.

Not that I can speak for Zuckerman, but perhaps he assumes the reader will recognize that he IS speaking within the context of "[our] short time on Earth." Within that context, what he said seems to be true.

Zuckerman mentions the possibility of eternal hell, but fails to properly attribute it to Jesus. By this omission, he makes it sound like the whole concept of everlasting hell was something conjured up by the overactive imaginations of evangelicals.

You've lost me here. Doesn't seem reasonable that you would draw that conclusion. Perhaps if you elaborate on your line of thought?

So many non-Christians talk of Jesus as if he taught nothing but good things. How do they deal with passages like this one? It's high time they wake up and realize that the evangelicals may have a point here.

What point is that?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you take issue with the topic of this thread? How is starting a thread on this topic inconsistent with what Jesus taught about "mercy and forgiveness"? Do you find it more or less inconsistent than supporting "the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture"?

Do you find views ...[text shortened]... lical Christians as pointed out by Zuckerma as being consistent with the teachings of Jesus?

Why do you take issue with the topic of this thread? How is starting a thread on this topic inconsistent with what Jesus taught about "mercy and forgiveness"?

If you are so crystal clear about what Jesus taught, then like Peter, you should respond to the words "Follow Me". Why look around and make issue about what another is doing? What does that have to do with Jesus saying to each of us "You follow Me" ?

You seem to want to force Christians to take a stance of political or social policy. Just because some vocal Christians took a stance on policy activism doesn't mean all "evangelical Christians" are defined by the activism of those Christians.

Do you find it more or less inconsistent than supporting "the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture"?

Do you find views of Evangelical Christians as pointed out by Zuckerma as being consistent with the teachings of Jesus?

I don't think every Christian has to be a political activist or express an opinion on policy. I can live in a country which has capital punishment as a law and one that does not.

Where I meet no official stance on any of these policies has been the obligatory position that each member of the congregation must hold.

Our priorities are with preaching the Gospel to bring people to Christ. Then to minister Christ to them for their growth, building up, and the building up of the local church.

There is no obligation to belong to a political party and no official instruction on who a Christian should vote for.

My personal opinion about some of these things may or may not have anything to do with my personal spiritual life with Christ. and my position on a policy I may choose to keep out of my church life as my personal preference. I don't use my politics as a litmus test for fellowship between Christian brothers and sisters.

Usually, and I would say probably overwhelmingly, when Paul or the other apostles touched such matters it was only related to life among the churching people. We don't see Paul rallying people at the Roman political establishment as a social reformer or political activist. He was preaching Christ and establishing communities called churches where Christ can change people into His image and build them up together in love. These communities were to be shining testimonies to the world around of Christ's salvation.

If some brothers feel the need to labor to affect government policy as an activist, they do it according to their own conscience before the Lord.

I may have a strong opinion on some of these issues or I may not. I may also choose to keep that a personal matter so as not to confuse unbelievers that my opinion on it is the "official" position of all who claim to be Christians.

Originally posted by jaywill

Why do you take issue with the topic of this thread? How is starting a thread on this topic inconsistent with what Jesus taught about "mercy and forgiveness"?

If you are so crystal clear about what Jesus taught, then like Peter, you should respond to the words [b]"Follow Me". Why look around and make issue about what another is d ...[text shortened]... my opinion on it is the "official" position of all who claim to be Christians.[/b]

What does that have to do with Jesus saying to each of us "You follow Me" ?

In the article Zuckerman also says:
"Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message."

Seems like he is questioning why so many choose not to "follow [Jesus]". Why they choose to hold views that are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

I basically have the same question. As I said earlier in this thread:

The question for me is, "How can they rationally reconcile their views with the teachings of Jesus whom they presumably call 'Lord'?".

You seem to want to force Christians to take a stance of political or social policy.
Not sure why you'd think that. I'm not attempting to "force Christians to take a stance of political or social policy". However I do have the above question.

Just because some vocal Christians took a stance on policy activism doesn't mean all "evangelical Christians" are defined by the activism of those Christians
No one is claiming that "all evangelical Christians" are defined by those views.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Did Jesus really unambiguously preach mercy and forgiveness?...Jesus taught forgiveness and mercy during your short time on earth, and eternal punishment with no hope of mercy thereafter.

Not that I can speak for Zuckerman, but perhaps he assumes the reader will recognize that he IS speaking within the context of "[our] short time on Earth." Wit ...[text shortened]... wake up and realize that the evangelicals may have a point here.[/b]

What point is that?[/b]

Zuckerman's context needs expansion. His portrayal of Jesus as purely advocating mercy and forgiveness is misleading. He's ignoring the Elephant in the room.

Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.

So, evangelicals love/thank Jesus for saving them from hell - and now the key words - "And yet, as for Jesus himself..." sound like he is differentiating between the beliefs of evangelicals and Jesus's actual teachings. At the very least he is saying that Jesus may have indeed taught about hell, but it is not one of his "core" teachings. This is very misleading. Obviously, the eternal existence after death is infinitely longer than the comparatively short time we live on earth. Thus, any claims about the eternal existence must carry great weight amongst the other teachings of Jesus. They are definitely one of his 'core' teachings given the impact and importance of deciding one's eternal fate.

Evangelicals have the point that Jesus claimed that all will be judged, and granted eternal life, or sentenced to eternal punishment. Actions that promote eternal life have far, far more overall impact on people than actions aimed at their temporary earthly life. As a matter of priority, promoting eternal life should be the first thing on the agenda.