Evangelical Christians

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.

The Kingdom Christ was referring to is a supernatural Kingdom. It is one that
can enter the hearts of men and change them. Amen. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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.

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.

You're a good marketer. I think this is an advertizing technique at its best. You "suppose" such an assumption could be made. But if they read the whole article they would see that the advertizing label is ... well, not QUITE the generalization it appears to be.

Great marketing, like a good Used Car salesman's labels.

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.

Seriously, ToO, you should just own up to your clever advertizing.

Originally posted by jaywill

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.

You're a good marketer. I think this is an advertizing technique at its best. You "suppose" such an assumption could be made. But if they read the whole article they would see that the advertizi ...[text shortened]... umptions. [/quote]

Seriously, ToO, you should just own up to your clever advertizing.

C'mon jaywill, you made a false assumption. Just admit it to yourself instead of acting like a little kid.

Why are so many Christians so prideful that they can't admit they made a mistake? Within the last 24 hours or so it's been you, RC and G75.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon jaywill, you made a false assumption. Just admit it to yourself instead of acting like a little kid.

Why are so many Christians so prideful that they can't admit they made a mistake? Within the last 24 hours or so it's been you, RC and G75.

LOL!!! "C'mon, C'mon, C'mon, C'mon."

You're good ToO and right on time as usual. Which is it going to be now, a diatribe on my reading comprehension skills or lectures on my EGO ?

My assumption, I think, was accurate. Now you just want to ease away from your advertizing "Evangelical Christians" to appear, well, not to be generalizing too much, IF one reads carefully.

Anyway, I gave you my thoughts about it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, this didn't help as much as I hoped it would 🙂

[b]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 que ...[text shortened]... percentage of the food that is given out is from the government as well.[/b]

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?

There are many types of Christian. The teachings of Jesus are subject to different interpretations. The historicity and accuracy of some of them is disputed. There are other gospels with words of Jesus that were not even included in the Bible. I tend to give people a wide latitude in claiming they are a Christian. To use an extreme example, I think it's possible to have atheistic Christians. They can follow many of Christ's teachings without believing that he is a deity, or that he has a "Father in Heaven".

There is also the fact that no one can possibly follow all the myriad rules in the Bible. People are bound to prioritize some instructions over others.

That's why I'm not much interested in deciding who is a True Christian® and who is not. I tend to talk to Christians to find out how they interpret the Bible, and see what makes them tick.

Yes, I know Zuckerman is a sociologist. The "professor of sociology in California" bit gave it away. 🙂 But the issues that he speaks of are undeniably political. You can't change things like the sentencing of prisoners or the apportioning of government benefits, such as food stamps, without entering the political arena in some way. He says evangelicals are 'the most supportive' of certain political stances, which I take to mean that they don't just talk about them but vote for them as well. I don't think he'd be quite as upset if the evangelicals were all staying home on election day. 🙂

I'm glad to hear that you've had experiences with Christians that were actually out helping people instead of sitting home whining about gov't taking their tax dollars. Yes, it is practical to allow the gov't to help if there is not enough volunteer help, but allow me to point out that Jesus' advice was not always practical. For example, it makes zero sense to sell all you have and give it to the poor. You'd just become another poor person, and the money would be spent and gone quickly. You'd be able to help more people by keeping some of what you have and keeping your ability to earn a living.

Jesus did not say "give what you have to the government so they can give to the poor". Nor did he say "go lobby all your rich friends to give to the poor". He said "YOU give to the poor".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, this didn't help as much as I hoped it would 🙂

[b]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 que ...[text shortened]... percentage of the food that is given out is from the government as well.[/b]

You must understand that not all Christians can devote their lives to taking
care of the poor or else they would be poor too. We are not going to solve
the problem of the poor for Jesus told his disciples, "For you have the poor
with you always, but Me you do not have always.
(Matthew 26:11 NKJV)

Originally posted by jaywill
LOL!!! "C'mon, C'mon, C'mon, C'mon."

You're good ToO and right on time as usual. Which is it going to be now, a diatribe on my reading comprehension skills or lectures on my [b] EGO ?

My assumption, I think, was accurate. Now you just want to ease away from your advertizing "Evangelical Christians" to appear, well, not to be generalizing too much, IF one reads carefully.

Anyway, I gave you my thoughts about it.[/b]

JW, it's really simple. You made an assumption. Your assumption was false. Your attempts to put blame on another that for an assumption that YOU made is absurd.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]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?

There are many types of Christian. The teachings of Jesus are subject to different interpretations. The historicity and accuracy of some of them is disputed. There are other go ...[text shortened]... ch friends to give to the poor". He said "YOU give to the poor".[/b]

Don't know what to make of this.

That's why I'm not much interested in deciding who is a True Christian® and who is not. I tend to talk to Christians to find out how they interpret the Bible, and see what makes them tick.

I wasn't asking you to decide who is a "True Christian®". I was trying to get some clarity on what you meant by "follower of the teachings of Jesus".

There is also the fact that no one can possibly follow all the myriad rules in the Bible.

The "teachings of Jesus" are only a subset of "all the myriad rules in the Bible".

You can't change things like the sentencing of prisoners or the apportioning of government benefits, such as food stamps, without entering the political arena in some way.

Zuckerman wasn't speaking of "changing" anything. He was talking about how people "view" things.


He says evangelicals are 'the most supportive' of certain political stances, which I take to mean that they don't just talk about them but vote for them as well.

Don't know why you'd take it to mean that. From what I gather he is talking about poll data. For example, someone who answers in the affirmative to the question, "Do you support the death penalty?" could be portrayed as being "supportive" of the death penalty. It has nothing to do with "voting".

Yes, it is practical to allow the gov't to help if there is not enough volunteer help

The point wasn't that it is "practical to allow the gov't to help". The point was that it's easy for someone to say that they "believe that the local churches and other volunteers should shoulder the task of caring for and aiding the sick and the needy, etc." and that they are opposed to government support on that basis. The reality is that it wouldn't get done without the government support that they oppose.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
JW, it's really simple. You made an assumption. Your assumption was false. Your attempts to put blame on another that for an assumption that YOU made is absurd.

ASSUME makes and ASS out of U and ME. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
ASSUME makes and ASS out of U and ME. HalleluYah !!! 😏

really?

Well if I had known that assuming something makes you into an ass I would do it more often.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
JW, it's really simple. You made an assumption. Your assumption was false. Your attempts to put blame on another that for an assumption that YOU made is absurd.

C'mon ThoO. C'mon, be reasonable here.

Okay, I went through the article carefully. It is a sarcastic piece of negativity pretty much from start to finish. But I gave you a benefit of a doubt.

When I got to this paragraph I said to myself "Okay, now the writer will balance the provocative title of the article." The paragraph leads yuo to believe that you are about to get a balance view and that "Evangelicals don't exacly hate Jesus ..."

So s/he writes:

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. 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.

Here's the conclusion to the balancing word to put things in an objective prospective:

"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.

Your thread title - Evangelical Christians

The judgment of your link "Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus"

"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.

In my opinion the author and probably you too, are taking, for example, a very vocal group like the militant Westfield Baptist Church and applying that perception of their attitude to "most Evangelical Christians".

Its really simple. C'mon ToO. You intended to generalize about "most Evangelical Christians" under the thread title "Evangelical Christians".

I don't think a vocal group of activists represent "MOST Evangelical Christians".

Originally posted by jaywill
C'mon ThoO. C'mon, be reasonable here.

Okay, I went through the article carefully. It is a sarcastic piece of negativity pretty much from start to finish. But I gave you a benefit of a doubt.

When I got to this paragraph I said to myself "Okay, now the writer will balance the provocative title of the article." The paragraph leads yuo to believe th ...[text shortened]... ink a vocal group of activists represent "MOST Evangelical Christians".

Which would be why he cited a statistical survey looking at Evangelical Christians and cited
the results of that study as the basis for his piece.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx

Originally posted by googlefudge
Which would be why he cited a statistical survey looking at Evangelical Christians and cited
the results of that study as the basis for his piece.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx

Well, let me put it this way. There are three kinds of lies -

a lie,
a damn lie,
and a statistic

Originally posted by jaywill
Well, let me put it this way. There are three kinds of lies -

a lie,
a damn lie,
and a statistic

Sigh.

Very funny.

You ready to actually discuss this sensibly or are you just going to trot out nonsense?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh.

Very funny.

You ready to actually discuss this sensibly or are you just going to trot out nonsense?

Glad you like it. It came from my college Statistics professor years ago.

Now, the stats you pointed me to were stats on members of the TEA PARTY. That was the "universe" from which they were deriving their numbers.

The Tea Party is not a broad representative of Evangelical Christians.
While the article was interesting, I didn't see it representative of the millions of Evagelical Christians who may NOT be politically active or in the Tea Party.

C'mon googlefudge, C'mon.

The analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party. But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right. An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46😵 had not heard of or did not have an opinion about “the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right”; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11😵 said they disagree.3 More generally, the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it).

The funny little graphic faces are purely unintentional.