Evangelical Christians

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?

If you don't know the belief system why are you attempting to talk about it
as if you do. All of us are sinners, each and ever one, and every sin Jesus
died for so everyone can be saved from their sins. There is only one life
line thrown the human race by God and that is Jesus Christ. Everyone else
is simply going to be where they are when they die and if there is sin in
their lives, their sins will be their down fall.

God even allows us to be a law for ourselves, so if you reject God's law
you will be the law giver and you will stand or fall on your own. So if you
have been perfect according to your beliefs okay fine; however, if you even
fall where you break your own rules/laws you will be held accountable for
that!

There are going to be more than a few that will be condemned even if they
believed in God, the devil believes in God. If you don't come to God the
way God demands you are doing it on your own and will get the results that
come from that. If you believe in other gods or ways to God, and they are
rejected because God does not approve them you will live the results of that.

Its sin that will cause punishment.
Kelly

Originally posted by SwissGambit
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.
[quote]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 a matter of priority, promoting eternal life should be the first thing on the agenda.

Try expanding Zuckerman's context even further:

Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. 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.

Seems likely that where you see Zuckerman as "differentiating between the beliefs of evangelicals and Jesus's actual teachings", he is actually differentiating between "what he does for them" and "what he tried to teach humanity". Seems like his basic point is that many Evangelicals value what they think they get from his action (the "shedding [of] his precious blood" ), but don't value his moral teachings.

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.

You seem to off on a tangent here. Like I said earlier seems like Zuckerman is focused on the context of the "comparatively short time we live on earth" - which makes sense since he's a sociologist. As such he's interested in how we choose to live HERE. Seems like he's interested in an underlying question which is, "Why don't they choose to live here as Jesus taught them to live here?". The "eternal existence" issue isn't really a part of the discussion other than to point out that they "love" Jesus for what they think they get, but somehow that love doesn't extend to His moral teachings. Getting away from Zuckerman, Jesus asked the following question of His followers: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and don't do what I say?". Is He truly their "Lord" if they don't do as He said?

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.

What do you see as the "actions that promote eternal life" as taught by Jesus?

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.

God's 10 commandments have not proven to usher in morality to the world.
Therefore, God had to come in human form as an example of what love is
all about. If we loved God we would have obeyed His commandments. But
because man's heart is deceitfully wicked, he rebells against God in an attempt
to fulfill his selfish interests. This is why you act the way you do toward God.
You do not see his purpose as promoting love; but you see it as a way to deny
your happiness.

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."

sorry for being tardy...
my lil ditty was not targeted at anyone or anything...
this iz entirely the musings of my mind az i read the thoughts and arguments presented, and i admit to having not read the initial article...

in general, folks get all wound up over their personal beliefs, for which they have scripture after scripture to back them up...
and others, taking the very same scriptures, can read into them all sorts of incredible scenarios, again taking other scriptures and using them for support of their own,

beliefs...

personally, i tend to simplify, intentionally...
my nick iz a personal philosophy, i will not admit to knowing much at all, even if i think i do...

of the scriptures and holy books i've read, and the carnal ones az well, all the details, rules, commandments, edicts, and suggestions can be boiled down and simplified into "love yer neighbor az yerself"...

and even further...

love...

this iz all that matters, at least to me...
if i have distracted or sidetracked i apologize, but, i will not go away...
i will read everything that everyone haz to say...
HA!!! if i can keep up with the prolificness of this forum...

rookie

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[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, li one is claiming that "all evangelical Christians" are defined by those views.[/b]

No one is claiming that "all evangelical Christians" are defined by those views.

Then why did you call your thread "Evangelical Christians" ? I think the typical reader would assume that you are about to discuss some generalizations.

Huh? Of course you are ... Generalizations about "Evangelical Christians".

Originally posted by jaywill

No one is claiming that "all evangelical Christians" are defined by those views.

Then why did you call your thread "Evangelical Christians" ? I think the typical reader would assume that you are about to discuss some [b]generalizations.

Huh? Of course you are ... Generalizations about "Evangelical Christians".[/b]

I suppose a reader may make such an assumption, but were the reader to read the article carefully, he'd realize that his assumption was false. Perhaps there's a lesson in there for you: don't make assumptions and if you do make an assumption, be readily prepared to give up the assumption if there is evidence to the contrary.

Seriously JW, you need to take responsibility for YOUR assumptions.

Originally posted by rookie54
sorry for being tardy...
my lil ditty was not targeted at anyone or anything...
this iz entirely the musings of my mind az i read the thoughts and arguments presented, and i admit to having not read the initial article...

in general, folks get all wound up over their personal beliefs, for which they have scripture after scripture to back them up...
an eryone haz to say...
HA!!! if i can keep up with the prolificness of this forum...

rookie

Okay. I didn't realize you make random posts at your whim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God's 10 commandments have not proven to usher in morality to the world.
Therefore, God had to come in human form as an example of what love is
all about. If we loved God we would have obeyed His commandments. But
because man's heart is deceitfully wicked, he rebells against God in an attempt
to fulfill his selfish interests. This is why you act the w ...[text shortened]... You do not see his purpose as promoting love; but you see it as a way to deny
your happiness.

Why on earth would I love your god?

He's a bigoted, sexist, egotistic, genocidal maniac.



However I don't 'act' anyway towards your god because your god doesn't exist.


And the ten commandments have little to do with morality.

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. ...[text shortened]... /www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html

If the ONLY prerequisite for entrance into heaven is a simple, child-like mind, you are a shoo-in, to be certain. It appears as though you can take your mentor, Phil, with you on that basis, as well.

But wait: sadly, there's more.

Branches and limbs slapping you in the face; leaves blinding your progress; the forest floor so thick with detritus, you still cannot see the trees!

The Lord Jesus Christ was here on the planet during a very unique dispensation. Just for giggles, let's call it The Age of the Hypostatic Union. The words which He uttered during that time must be interpreted within the time they were spoken, with a mind to the intended audience(s).

Some of His sayings are VERY hard to understand: He said so Himself! However, one thing was made excruciatingly clear, and that is this. His Kingdom is not of this world.

The Time of Nations has been the order of the day, prior to His dispensation and since His dispensation. Nations cannot be Christian, cannot be non-Christian. They're nations, not people! A good portion of the misapplied sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ pertain to how we treat one another--- decidedly NOT how nations are supposed to act.

When you strive to hold nations to a standard of conduct specifically spelled out for individuals, you are begging for disaster.

Don't know what your beef is, really, but you need to get over this fixation with the literal application of the red letters.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Try expanding Zuckerman's context even further:
[quote]Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. [b]They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious b "actions that promote eternal life" as taught by Jesus?[/b]

Seems likely that where you see Zuckerman as "differentiating between the beliefs of evangelicals and Jesus's actual teachings", he is actually differentiating between "what he does for them" and "what he tried to teach humanity".

If you are correct, then I think Zuckerman has committed an error. Salvation from eternal punishment IS one of Jesus's core moral teachings. It is arguably his most important one. The scope of judgment is everyone in the world and its history; the criteria is everything each person has done, or not done, throughout their lives; the severity of the punishment and richness of the reward are at their respective maximums. The other teachings about helping individuals pale in scope and impact compared to this one.

You can get eternal life by treating people on earth as Jesus said to treat them, but that only saves you. It does not save them. If you visit the imprisoned, care for the sick, etc. and yet do not convince them to become a Christian - a follower of Jesus' teachings - they will be eternally punished. You have failed to help them solve their biggest problem. The problems you are helping with are trivial in comparison.

To promote eternal life for as many people as possible, you must convince them to become Christians.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]Seems likely that where you see Zuckerman as "differentiating between the beliefs of evangelicals and Jesus's actual teachings", he is actually differentiating between "what he does for them" and "what he tried to teach humanity".

If you are correct, then I think Zuckerman has committed an error. Salvation from eternal punishment IS one of Jesu ernal life for as many people as possible, you must convince them to become Christians.[/b]

Not sure where you're coming from, but let's look at the Christians that are the topic of Zuckerman's article. You define a Christian as "a follower of Jesus' teachings". Under that definition do you consider the people that are the topic of Zuckerman's article as "Christian"? If so, how do you reconcile their views with "follow[ing] Jesus' teachings"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure where you're coming from, but let's look at the Christians that are the topic of Zuckerman's article. You define a Christian as "a follower of Jesus' teachings". Under that definition do you consider the people that are the topic of Zuckerman's article as "Christian"? If so, how do you reconcile their views with "follow[ing] Jesus' teachings"?

I can't paint them all with the same brush. I was in evangelical churches for 2 decades. Some of them were better at following Jesus' teachings than others. Besides the obvious step of witnessing, I'm talking about actually visiting and aiding the elderly, the sick, etc. as Jesus commanded. Zuckerman is more focused on their political views. I see no commands from Jesus about voting in elections. 🙂

Edit: Let me say some more about Christian political views. Some believe that the local churches and other volunteers should shoulder the task of caring for and aiding the sick and the needy, etc. instead of the government. This is not a rejection of Christ's mandate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If the ONLY prerequisite for entrance into heaven is a simple, child-like mind, you are a shoo-in, to be certain. It appears as though you can take your mentor, Phil, with you on that basis, as well.

But wait: sadly, there's more.

Branches and limbs slapping you in the face; leaves blinding your progress; the forest floor so thick with detritus, you ...[text shortened]... lly, but you need to get over this fixation with the literal application of the red letters.

When you strive to hold nations to a standard of conduct specifically spelled out for individuals, you are begging for disaster.

Can you give a specific example of this?

Take government use of torture. What are your thoughts on this? Are not nations just collections of individuals? Is it morally allowable for a Christian who works as a gov't interrogator to waterboard a suspect? Is he allowed to do it because the Bible is silent on the issue, or because he is an agent of the government, or ...?

Is there a problem with moral buck-passing in government? For example, the guy doing the waterboarding blames it on the guy who gave the order, and vice versa. Do either of them actually have moral responsibility for their actions?

I know, I know, I am focusing on a specific tree instead of the forest. I get that. But sometimes you can't understand the whole forest without knowledge of what type of trees are in it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If the ONLY prerequisite for entrance into heaven is a simple, child-like mind, you are a shoo-in, to be certain. It appears as though you can take your mentor, Phil, with you on that basis, as well.

But wait: sadly, there's more.

Branches and limbs slapping you in the face; leaves blinding your progress; the forest floor so thick with detritus, you ...[text shortened]... lly, but you need to get over this fixation with the literal application of the red letters.

After you embarrassed yourself so thoroughly on the "Intellectual Honesty from a Christian" thread, it seems you felt a need to lash out. Feel better now?

Your post seems tangentially related to the OP at best. Perhaps you should start another thread.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I can't paint them all with the same brush. I was in evangelical churches for 2 decades. Some of them were better at following Jesus' teachings than others. Besides the obvious step of witnessing, I'm talking about actually visiting and aiding the elderly, the sick, etc. as Jesus commanded. Zuckerman is more focused on their political views. I see no com ...[text shortened]... and the needy, etc. instead of the government. This is not a rejection of Christ's mandate.

Well, this didn't help as much as I hoped it would 🙂

I can't paint them all with the same brush.

I wasn't expecting you to. You had defined a Christian as a "follower of Jesus' teachings". Zuckerman's article pointed out many instances where views chosen by many Evangelical Christians are seemingly at odds with "Jesus' teachings". So the question is do you consider someone who chooses to hold views that are at odds with "Jesus' teachings" to be rightly considered "Christian" under that definition? By holding those views, they are choosing to go against rather than follow Jesus' teachings.

Zuckerman is more focused on their political views. I see no commands from Jesus about voting in elections.

Once again Zuckerman is a sociologist. So his interest is in sociological views rather than political. Zuckerman isn't talking about voting in elections either.

Let me say some more about Christian political views. Some believe that the local churches and other volunteers should shoulder the task of caring for and aiding the sick and the needy, etc. instead of the government. This is not a rejection of Christ's mandate.

Evangelicals I've known have given me that excuse as well. But with a little digging, it seems that what really bothered the ones I was able to pin down, is the idea of their money (via tax dollars) helping to support others. They felt that people should support themselves since they do. Plus the reality is that without government aid, there isn't nearly enough support from "local churches". As an example, until recently I was volunteering at an organization that helps the needy. The organization is a coalition of 30 or so member churches. I'm guessing that one quarter to one third of the volunteer staff are non-Christians because they can't get enough volunteers from the member churches. A pretty high percentage of the food that is given out is from the government as well.