Evangelical Christians

Originally posted by jaywill
The funny little graphic faces are purely unintentional.

Yeah it's the % then ) with no space that does it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yep, he pretty much drove that nail home.

Boooooooo.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Don't know what to make of this.

[b]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 get done without the government support that they oppose.[/b]

Jesus mandated obedience to OT law and validated OT prophecy.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

If Zuckerman is only concerned with how people view things, I think his argument is very weak. Jesus was silent at best and acquiescent at worst on political issues. Examples:

1) Slavery.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Try to imagine Martin Luther King using such a parable!

2) Torture, Cruelty and Capital Punishment. Jesus was scourged and crucified with two other robbers [Matt 27:38]. Jesus does not claim that the robbers' sentence was unjust, nor protest his own. He does not claim that the method of death was too cruel. He does not claim that the Roman government should not be executing people.

3) Poverty.

Matt 26:7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.” 10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.

It's interesting that Jesus was not an absolutist about his own teachings. He grants an exception to his own command of selling what you have and giving it to the poor. Jesus also concedes that the larger overall problem of poverty is unsolvable. Try putting those words in the mouth of Mother Teresa!

4) Ownership of Weapons.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”

Jesus does not tell Peter that he has no right to carry a sword. He does not tell Peter to surrender the sword to the authorities. I wonder if Peter was carrying the sword when Jesus was earlier telling people "do not resist an evil person"! How ironic that would be...

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.

It's easy for people to say lots of things on many issues. I think you have a good case against the Christian who does nothing to help the poor himself. However, as pointed out above, Jesus conceded that the overall problem of poverty is unsolvable. Jesus was unconcerned about the overall amount of aid given to the poor. He just wanted his followers to help them as best they could. Given this, the evangelical can coherently oppose gov't intervention to help the poor while affirming the teachings of Jesus.

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 ink a vocal group of activists represent "MOST Evangelical Christians".

Let's look back at what we're talking about:

You made the following statement:

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"

I responded:

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

The fact is that no one is claiming that "ALL evangelical Christians are defined by those views". I certainly wasn't claiming it. I have no reason to believe that Zuckerman was claiming it. Look at his language: "And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive...". Why you would take this as "all evangelical Christians" is beyond me. There is nothing in that language that indicates that he is speaking of "ALL evangelical Christians".

Then you started harping on the title of the thread ("Envangelical Christians" ) as if that somehow indicates it. Well the fact is that it doesn't and it's ridiculous that you are trying to put the blame on me for your making that assumption.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's look back at what we're talking about:

You made the following statement:

Just because some vocal Christians took a stance on policy activism doesn't mean [b]all "evangelical Christians" are defined by the activism of those Christians"

I responded:
[quote]No one is claiming that "all evangelical Christians" are defin ...[text shortened]... that you are trying to put the blame on me for your making that assumption.[/b]

Look at the opening line of this thread, "And yet Evangelicals are..." there
is a blanket statement here about Evangelicals as if how he defines them
is how all of them are defined.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Look at the opening line of this thread, "And yet Evangelicals are..." there
is a blanket statement here about Evangelicals as if how he defines them
is how all of them are defined.
Kelly

Okay KJ, I'll try to explain it to you.

Let's look at the text in question:
"And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive..."

It doesn't mean that he is saying that it applies to ALL evangelicals.

Let's say that he had said the following:
"Teenagers between 18 and 21 are the most supportive of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18."

It wouldn't mean that ALL teenagers between 18 and 21 support lowering the drinking age. It just means that of the age groups polled, the age group with the highest percentage of individuals indicating support were teenagers between 18 and 21.

Do you understand now? If you don't, point out what doesn't make sense to you and I'll try to elaborate.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Okay KJ, I'll try to explain it to you.

Let's look at the text in question:
"And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive..."

It doesn't mean that he is saying that it applies to ALL evangelicals.

Let's say that he had said the following:
"Teenagers between 18 and 21 are the most supportive of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18."

It wo ...[text shortened]... w? If you don't, point out what doesn't make sense to you and I'll try to elaborate.

You have had several tell you that it comes off like that, where he does
limit the number of Evangelicals from all too some fraction he makes sure
that most are in deed colored the way he portrayed them.

"...-- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain."

This guy was going through a smear campaign and your standing with him
in agreement with how he is doing it in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have had several tell you that it comes off like that, where he does
limit the number of Evangelicals from all too some fraction he makes sure
that most are in deed colored the way he portrayed them.

"...-- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain."

This guy was going through a smear campaign and your standing with him
in agreement with how he is doing it in my opinion.
Kelly

You have had several tell you that it comes off like that, where he does
limit the number of Evangelicals from all too some fraction he makes sure
that most are in deed colored the way he portrayed them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You have had several tell you that it comes off like that, where he does
limit the number of Evangelicals from all too some fraction he makes sure
that most are in deed colored the way he portrayed them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?[/b]

Sure.
I don't believe I'm the only that is saying he is painting a Christians in a
very bad light. He is going after Evangelicals and he did not phares it in
a way that would lead anyone to just think only some were as bad as
he was painting them. Where he did put some fraction on the Evangelicals
he made sure his readers thought most were as he was describing them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sure.
I don't believe I'm the only that is saying he is painting a Christians in a
very bad light. He is going after Evangelicals and he did not phares it in
a way that would lead anyone to just think only some were as bad as
he was painting them. Where he did put some fraction on the Evangelicals
he made sure his readers thought most were as he was describing them.
Kelly

Okay thanks. It clear it up quite a bit, but I'm still not sure if you now understand that Zuckerman was not claiming that those views apply to all Evangelical Christians. For that matter he wasn't even claiming that all those views necessarily apply to even one individual. Do you understand this?

If you do understand it, I'll get to the rest of your post. If you don't, let me know what doesn't make sense to you and I'll try to elaborate.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Jesus mandated obedience to OT law and validated OT prophecy.[quote]Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore s tly oppose gov't intervention to help the poor while affirming the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus mandated obedience to OT law and validated OT prophecy.

If you continue reading the rest of Matthew 5 you'll see where Jesus cites several examples of where the Jews have it wrong including at least one instance of Levitical law. So it doesn't seem that that was what He was doing in the passage you cited.

As for the examples you cite, you seem to be drawing inferences based on what Jesus DID NOT say. They are all purely conjecture on your part.

However, as pointed out above, Jesus conceded that the overall problem of poverty is unsolvable. Jesus was unconcerned about the overall amount of aid given to the poor. He just wanted his followers to help them as best they could.

Unless you have something more than what you cited in your earlier example, once again this is purely conjecture on your part.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Jesus mandated obedience to OT law and validated OT prophecy.

If you continue reading the rest of Matthew 5 you'll see where Jesus cites several examples of where the Jews have it wrong including at least one instance of Levitical law. So it doesn't seem that that was what He was doing in the passage you cited.

As for the examples you cite, ...[text shortened]... han what you cited in your earlier example, once again this is purely conjecture on your part.[/b]

Matthew 5:17-20 states that law will be preserved in its entirety, and that people are expected to follow all of its precepts, including the 'least' of them. According to your theory, Jesus went on to strike down certain parts of the law. Can you reconcile this self-contradiction?

Zuckerman is the one who started "drawing inferences" here. He took a slew of different political positions and attributed them to Jesus. I provided concrete counter-examples showing that there is no historical record of Jesus taking such positions [that's what 'silent' means in context], or worse yet, there are indications that Jesus passively accepted some of them. Jesus was VERY outspoken on matters he considered morally odious. It seems odd that he would speak of obvious moral wrongs like slavery without ever offering any words of condemnation for such practices.

We must resort to inference because of the limitations of the historical record. We don't have access to everything Jesus said. However, I think it is valid to make certain inferences based on what Jesus did not say, or was not recorded as saying. His silence on certain issues of seemingly great moral importance must have some explanation. One possibility is that he himself did not think these issues were important enough to talk about. Another is that they were not very important to the people who passed down the accounts of Jesus, or the people who wrote the Gospels.

Originally posted by googlefudge
really?

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

It does not exclude you from being the ASS. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Matthew 5:17-20 states that law will be preserved in its entirety, and that people are expected to follow all of its precepts, including the 'least' of them. According to your theory, Jesus went on to strike down certain parts of the law. Can you reconcile this self-contradiction?

Zuckerman is the one who started "drawing inferences" here. He took a s o the people who passed down the accounts of Jesus, or the people who wrote the Gospels.

Matthew 5:17-20 states that law will be preserved in its entirety, and that people are expected to follow all of its precepts, including the 'least' of them. According to your theory, Jesus went on to strike down certain parts of the law. Can you reconcile this self-contradiction?

I gather you didn't look at the rest of Matthew 5. Following is an example:

Matthew 5
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This contradicts the following:

Leviticus 24
19‘If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

So your assertion that "Jesus mandated obedience to OT law" must be incorrect as I pointed out earlier. Read what Jesus actually said. He didn't say "OT law". He just said "the law" which you assumed means "OT law". To Jesus "the law" was the law as He saw it, not as the Jews saw it. The Jews thought they had "the law" but were wrong. Jesus was here to give them "the law", i.e., "fulfill" "the law".

As for the rest, Zuckerman took themes that Jesus explicitly stated and applied them. For example, Zuckerman pointed out that Jesus preached "mercy and forgiveness" and the incongruity of supporting the death penalty.

You on the other hand seemed to take the fact that Jesus was not recorded as speaking out against the death penalty while He was on the cross as some sort of "sign" that He wasn't against the death penalty. Your inference flies in the face of the "mercy and forgiveness" that Jesus went on and on about.

Your other examples are similarly flawed.

Also, can't fathom why you keep bringing up slavery when Zuckerman never mentioned it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Matthew 5:17-20 states that law will be preserved in its entirety, and that people are expected to follow all of its precepts, including the 'least' of them. According to your theory, Jesus went on to strike down certain parts of the law. Can you reconcile this self-contradiction?

Zuckerman is the one who started "drawing inferences" here. He took a s ...[text shortened]... o the people who passed down the accounts of Jesus, or the people who wrote the Gospels.

It is also recored by one writer something like the world could not hold all the books
that could be written about what Christ said and did.