Evangelical Christians

[Bozo_Casanova 26317]

That Kurt Vonnegut was a truth teller


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

This reminds me of one of my very favorite quotations from kurt Vonnegut:

"He had a tremendous wang, incidentally. You never know who'll get one."

This reminds me of one of my favorite Dangerfield quotes:

Hey Wang!  What’s with the pictures?  It’s a parking lot.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest

[Mole 4320]

This reminds me of my favorite Jack Hues quote:

Everybody have fun tonight, everybody Wang Chung tonight.

[El Diablo 4232]

On this date in history, Aimee Semple McPherson was allegedly kidnapped in California. Relevance? Evangelical. Her story makes for an interesting read in part because of the use of broadcast media by the clergy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Semple_McPherson#Reported_kidnapping

[phdhorn 6224]

All this reminds me of my favorite Jack Handey quote:

Quote

"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes."

[BrickHorn 18198]

20 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Brick is a wicked smaht guy and I like him, but for some reason Axiom gets him all defensive and ugly when he's usually just whip smaht and funny.

I have no patience for the type of argument Aleph or Axiom or whatever-the-fuck he calls himself now likes to engage in.  He is smart, but he works backwards from the answer he wants.  He would rather use his intellect to create complex puzzles and logical diversions obscuring the truth, than to engage in honest conversation.  I indulged it for a while before his strategy became painfully obvious and I got sick of wasting my time ferreting out the flaws in his reasoning.

I’m just not interested in a debate ultimately based on the idea that 100 supposed experts nodded in agreement.  And if you believe that Axiom is only quoting scholarly opinion just to prove that the scholars agree (without regard to what it is those scholars agree on), then I have a bridge to sell you.  That disingenuous line is just about the most stereotypical lawyerly bullshit I’ve ever seen.  Which is ironic, since I’m the one accused of being lawyerly.

I’m not here to persuade.  I don’t care what myths Axiom or anyone else chooses to believe.  But if someone tells me that I’m wrong, and their only evidence is a logical fallacy, I’m going to call bullshit.  And when that poster has a long history of similarly disengenuous arguments, I’m not going to be nice about it.

Edited May 18, 2018 by BrickHorn

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I have no patience for the type of argument Aleph or Axiom or whatever-the-fuck he calls himself now likes to engage in.  He is smart, but he works backwards from the answer he wants.  He would rather use his intellect to create complex puzzles and logical diversions obscuring the truth, than to engage in honest conversation.  I indulged it for a while before his strategy became painfully obvious and I got sick of wasting my time ferreting out the flaws in his reasoning.

I’m just not interested in a debate ultimately based on the idea that 100 supposed experts nodded in agreement.  And if you believe that Axiom is only quoting scholarly opinion just to prove that the scholars agree (without regard to what it is those scholars agree on), then I have a bridge to sell you.  That disingenuous line is just about the most stereotypical lawyerly bullshit I’ve ever seen.  Which is ironic, since I’m the one accused of being lawyerly.

I’m not here to persuade.  I don’t care what myths Axiom or anyone else chooses to believe.  But if someone tells me that I’m wrong, and their only evidence is a logical fallacy, I’m going to call bullshit.  And when that poster has a long history of similarly disengenuous arguments, I’m not going to be nice about it.

Roger that. My misunderstanding and misreading (hence my post you replied to) was that you and axiom held each other with good respect and regard, which is why the conversations between you two I've always really enjoyed and, if I'm being honest, could count on learning a thing or two from both sides. I didn't realize the "relationship" between you two was discordant and unwelcome. My bad, friend.

[BrickHorn 18198]

It’s not discordant.  I just find his approach on certain topics unproductive and disengenuous.  On pure science or math, he’s logical and consistent.  But as soon as the spirit world and magic zombies and other hocus-pocus is implicated, he turns into a sophisticated obstructionist.  That’s his prerogative, but I’m not going to waste my time engaging on that level or feigning respect for horseshit just because it’s especially sophisticated horseshit.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I have no patience for the type of argument Aleph or Axiom or whatever-the-fuck he calls himself now likes to engage in.  He is smart, but he works backwards from the answer he wants.  He would rather use his intellect to create complex puzzles and logical diversions obscuring the truth, than to engage in honest conversation.  I indulged it for a while before his strategy became painfully obvious and I got sick of wasting my time ferreting out the flaws in his reasoning.

I’m just not interested in a debate ultimately based on the idea that 100 supposed experts nodded in agreement.  And if you believe that Axiom is only quoting scholarly opinion just to prove that the scholars agree (without regard to what it is those scholars agree on), then I have a bridge to sell you.  That disingenuous line is just about the most stereotypical lawyerly bullshit I’ve ever seen.  Which is ironic, since I’m the one accused of being lawyerly.

I’m not here to persuade.  I don’t care what myths Axiom or anyone else chooses to believe.  But if someone tells me that I’m wrong, and their only evidence is a logical fallacy, I’m going to call bullshit.  And when that poster has a long history of similarly disengenuous arguments, I’m not going to be nice about it.

Everyone who has walked planet earth from the dawn of time does this to some degree.  In every discipline and at every level of reasoning skill.  Do you think you latched on to the "insufficient proof that Jesus existed" argument from a place of pure & unadulterated objective search for truth?  Did you run through both attacking and defending both sides of this argument?  

The three fallacies that are most often referenced on the internet are straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to authority.  Straw man is often referenced because it is a commonly used fallacy.  Ad hominem and appeal to authority are referenced because people don't really know what they are.  They think any insult is an ad hominem fallacy and that giving any quotes or references to experts on a subject is an appeal to authority fallacy.  In this case, you've wrongly accused me of appeal to authority merely because I quoted and referenced scholars.  You haven't even bothered to consider the specific claims I was challenging and the arguments for which I was using the experts quotes as supporting evidence.   You just made a simple knee jerk reaction of referencing experts = appeal to authority fallacy.  

Here is some additional information on the fallacy:

"Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. "

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

 

 

19 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Roger that. My misunderstanding and misreading (hence my post you replied to) was that you and axiom held each other with good respect and regard, which is why the conversations between you two I've always really enjoyed and, if I'm being honest, could count on learning a thing or two from both sides. I didn't realize the "relationship" between you two was discordant and unwelcome. My bad, friend.

I have a lot of respect for BrickHorn and I do hold him in high regard.  I've always enjoyed our debates over the years.  Of the posters on these forums with worldviews opposed to my own, I enjoy debating/discussing with sidis and BrickHorn the most.  I do my best to be cordial and extend the benefit of the doubt, but of course we're all human and get frustrated and so I'm sure I've been derisive & condescending at times.  But it's not my primary intent and it's certianly not what I set out to do. 

My primary complaint against BrickHorn is that, in my mind at least, I will be doing my best to dispassionately and honestly evaluate claims and provide counter arguments and it seems from my perspective that we are having a cordial game of debate ping pong; then he will suddenly & unexpectedly drop the paddle and accuse me of disingenuous tactics and that my playing style is horseshit.

 

6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

It’s not discordant.  I just find his approach on certain topics unproductive and disengenuous.  On pure science or math, he’s logical and consistent.  But as soon as the spirit world and magic zombies and other hocus-pocus is implicated, he turns into a sophisticated obstructionist.  That’s his prerogative, but I’m not going to waste my time engaging on that level or feigning respect for horseshit just because it’s especially sophisticated horseshit.

I'm not expecting you to feign respect for anything.  You've made it abundantly clear over the years that you don't respect Christianity or belief in the supernatural.  That is noted for now and all time.  Of course if you like you can stop periodically to point out that you think my beliefs are horseshit, but there is not much I can give in return other than the equivalent of a shoulder shrug and an "ok."   You don't need to have any respect at all for the other side to play debate ping pong; you've just got to hit the ball back.  

 

[Gatorubet 30139]

On 5/17/2018 at 12:04 PM, Rex Kramer said:

Hayden is of the opinion - like many people - that Christians cannot be hypocrites. When in reality everyone on the planet is a hypocrite. 

What about the self professed hypocrites?   They are actually the honest ones...

[Gatorubet 30139]

11 hours ago, Aphelion said:

 There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. "

Aye, there's the rub...   I have an ex BIL who thinks Mark Levin is the smartest man alive.

[F250 28707]

47 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

What about the self professed hypocrites?   They are actually the honest ones...

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Describe self evident results not comprised by incomplete theories or theologies backed up with inaccurate rounded off figures that are never completely accurate by any stretched imagination, while educating to believe symbols are more significant than the substance they define metaphorically.

[cactusflinthead 27595]

 

that's what it is supposed to look like. 

Rex, where were those quotes on Tacitus and Josephus? It would be cool if you had those. I can wait. Still digging I suppose.

No mention of Rev. Barber huh? Guess he ain't evangelical enough to suit y'all. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by cactusflinthead

[bolverk 29418]

20 hours ago, Aphelion said:

"Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. "

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

 

Personally, I find it would be an error in reasoning to believe the accounts of miracles performed by Jesus: he walked on water; he healed lepers with a touch; he cured the blind; he fed hundreds with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread; he turned water into wine; he was dead for three days and then came back to life (sort of as a ghost-spirit thing). As a critical thinker, logic tells me those are impossibilities.

Why should I defer to the authority of second- or third-hand stories (even provisionally) told by illiterate fishermen and superstitious goat herders from the bronze age? If they're telling me these kinds of unbelievable stories about a god-man, why should I even accept that the individual they're describing is real when they've already lost their credibility?

Essentially, you're asking me to discard all logic and do something akin to taking the word of the ancients that the exploits of Jason and the Argonauts or Hercules were entirely real and unfabricated when most likely their stories are allegorical and only based (maybe) on a kernel of truth.

Edited May 19, 2018 by bolverk

[Orca of Peace 109]

Evangelicals remind me of the Taliban and white supremacists wrapped up in one. They truly frighten me. Have you ever tried debating them? Their ideology is intractable Kool Aid cultish. That the primary reason I never vote R even though I often like R candidates is because I don't want to empower the Evangelicals. Fuck them hard. 

[Guest]

I get frustrated with the politics of alleged evangelicals.

Otherwise, IDGAF what they do.  Some of you act as if we have a crusade being mounted in our society to drown all the kids in religion.  Such a freaking threat, right?

On the other hand, one COULD approach the situation as a major opportunity to drive that discussion within their own home. It’s insane to get all fired up because the whole of society might not agree with one’s ideas or opinions.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

It is a threat if it's invading our political system like it has you moron. Why do you think separation of church and state is supposed to be a thing?

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Why do you think separation of church and state is supposed to be a thing?

To protect the church from the state, and to prevent the state from instituting a state religion.

It is in no way intended to separate the influence of an individuals personal morality, which in some cases can be religiously aligned, from expression through our politics.  

[F250 28707]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

To protect the church from the state, and to prevent the state from instituting a state religion.

It is in no way intended to separate the influence of an individuals personal morality, which in some cases can be religiously aligned, from expression through our politics.  

But it's an invasion!

[Brian Fantana 6668]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

To protect the church from the state, and to prevent the state from instituting a state religion.

It is in no way intended to separate the influence of an individuals personal morality, which in some cases can be religiously aligned, from expression through our politics.  

Precisely, and both points are exceedingly important. Do you actually believe that the hardcore religious right, which has absolutely successfully wormed it's way to massive influence in American politics (see Ted fucking Cruz or our esteemed Vice President, who has tried his entire political career to legislate his wacked out religious beliefs) wouldn't love to do exactly the latter? Do you believe our staunch support of Israel is anything but government funded religious proxy warfare?

This doesn't mean I believe that our political leaders should have to "hide" their faith or keep their faith from influencing their personal morality. That's absurd.

Religion is a threat to our political system because it is far too easily abused as a cynical vessel for personal gain. Donald Trump is living proof you can be a completely amoral monster and as long as you dryly invoke the name of God ever so often (and avoid being a black Democrat), you can get away with anything. 

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Precisely, and both points are exceedingly important. Do you actually believe that the hardcore religious right, which has absolutely successfully wormed it's way to massive influence in American politics (see Ted fucking Cruz or our esteemed Vice President, who has tried his entire political career to legislate his wacked out religious beliefs) wouldn't love to do exactly the latter? Do you believe our staunch support of Israel is anything but government funded religious proxy warfare?

 This doesn't mean I believe that our political leaders should have to "hide" their faith or keep their faith from influencing their personal morality. That's absurd.

Religion is a threat to our political system because it is far too easily abused as a cynical vessel for personal gain. Donald Trump is living proof you can be a completely amoral monster and as long as you dryly invoke the name of God ever so often (and avoid being a black Democrat), you can get away with anything. 

I think that the notion that Mike Pence or Ted Cruz would support the establishment of a State Religion is absurd.

I think that our unquestioning support for Israel is justified by many with bad theology.

I really don't get the alignment between certain religious leaders and Trump, so I'll grant you that one; however, I do not see religion as a threat to our political system.  I don't think that western democracy would have emerged without the philosophical and religious context and milieu of 17th century europe.  So far from a threat to our political system, religious philosophy was the seed and is the foundation of our political system.    

[Brian Fantana 6668]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the notion that Mike Pence or Ted Cruz would support the establishment of a State Religion is absurd.

Why? Do you know anything about Cruz' family and how they're convinced he's divinely appointed to save America from Marxist totalitarianism? Do you think those people would stop short of theocracy if they had the opportunity? I'm not so sure.

Pence I'm not as sure about. His views are batshit, but it could be a front. Scary if not, though. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the notion that Mike Pence or Ted Cruz would support the establishment of a State Religion is absurd.

I think that our unquestioning support for Israel is justified by many with bad theology.

I really don't get the alignment between certain religious leaders and Trump, so I'll grant you that one; however, I do not see religion as a threat to our political system.  I don't think that western democracy would have emerged without the philosophical and religious context and milieu of 17th century europe.  So far from a threat to our political system, religious philosophy was the seed and is the foundation of our political system.    

Your view is becoming increasingly marginalized and laughed at, well because you support a goddamned fool.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

And a criminal, and a philandering bastard. Your morals, Mr. doctor all out on display, meaning you have none if you support the Republican Party.   It’s that or you are rudderless

[Anastasis 23402]

 

40 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Why? Do you know anything about Cruz' family and how they're convinced he's divinely appointed to save America from Marxist totalitarianism? Do you think those people would stop short of theocracy if they had the opportunity? I'm not so sure.

 Pence I'm not as sure about. His views are batshit, but it could be a front. Scary if not, though. 

This sounds like the sort of stuff my FIL would rant about Obama wanting to turn America into a socialist state. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

On 5/19/2018 at 10:07 AM, Brian Fantana said:

Why? Do you know anything about Cruz' family and how they're convinced he's divinely appointed to save America from Marxist totalitarianism? Do you think those people would stop short of theocracy if they had the opportunity? I'm not so sure.

Pence I'm not as sure about. His views are batshit, but it could be a front. Scary if not, though. 

i agree with this. Cruz and Pence would make Christian Protestanism the state religion if the votes were there, with 'guarantees' to protect the minorities. 

[Guest]

On 5/19/2018 at 9:37 AM, Brian Fantana said:

Precisely, and both points are exceedingly important. Do you actually believe that the hardcore religious right, which has absolutely successfully wormed it's way to massive influence in American politics (see Ted fucking Cruz or our esteemed Vice President, who has tried his entire political career to legislate his wacked out religious beliefs) wouldn't love to do exactly the latter? Do you believe our staunch support of Israel is anything but government funded religious proxy warfare?

This doesn't mean I believe that our political leaders should have to "hide" their faith or keep their faith from influencing their personal morality. That's absurd.

Religion is a threat to our political system because it is far too easily abused as a cynical vessel for personal gain. Donald Trump is living proof you can be a completely amoral monster and as long as you dryly invoke the name of God ever so often (and avoid being a black Democrat), you can get away with anything. 

what about the other nefarious influencers of politicians?

 

How bout eliminating them too? 

 

This is where the conversation regarding religion gets stupid.  It works from the assumption that religion is the only polluter of society.

 

Of course it is not, but it's easy as hell to identify and direct opposition, right?

Edited May 20, 2018 by slorch

[Brian Fantana 6668]

This is a religion thread dipshit

[Guest]

On 5/15/2018 at 11:45 AM, Brisketexan said:

And that's not the premise that's being discussed here.  A particularly FLAVOR of Christianity -- a flavor that has been rising in prominence and power in recent decades -- is strongly anti-science.  

The modern fundamentalist/evangelical movement -- with adherents like the Vice President of the United States and the Administrator of the EPA -- holds significant anti-science beliefs, based on the purported reasoning that the Bible tells us differently, and the Biblical take should reign supreme.

Yes, there are many Christians and Christian denominations that are not anti-science.  That's why the statements here have not been that CHRISTIANS are anti-science.  But some Christians -- particularly the ones from a group that has risen to the pinnacle of political power in this country -- are.  We're talking about that sub-set of "Christians" here.  So your "defense" of the larger group is logically fallacious and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

On 5/14/2018 at 3:14 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Except his point was not subjunctive in nature. They also likely wouldn't take on the term if they didn't speak english, or if the term didn't exist, or if they weren't evangelicals. and regardless of whether he or you have heard someone self-identify as evangelical, many do.  The idea that it's almost exclusively some kind of pejorative political signifier in common usage seems silly. 

To BT and BC: 

In threads such as these where I defend Christianity and attempt to point out the flaws in the modern stereotypes and unfair generalizations of various Christian groups, there are typically two types of posters who will argue with me.  The first and more common are outspoken agnostics/atheists in my peer group, which is to be expected.  The second type are politically left/central left Christians about a decade or more older than me.  They usually have some axe to grind against fundamentalists, often due to some personal experiences with family members or from old church disputes.  They also really, really do not like the politicization of the church, which seems to be their primary concern in regards to this subject.  

At the heart of what I am debating is an ideological dispute between materialism/naturalism and the the rationality of belief in the supernatural.  The first type of posters recognize this immediately and engage me accordingly.  My belief is that the second type presumes that I've got some ulterior political motives (which to be fair is not an invalid assumption in this case because this is a political forum) or that I'm defending fundamentalists.  But to clarify, I'm doing neither of those things.  I don't care about politics, I do not like the politicization of the church, and I find fundamentalists just as frustrating as you do.

What you may not be aware of, at least not to its full gravity, is the growing significance for younger generations of the ideological dispute against belief in the supernatural.  Posters like WTB do not give a shit about the differences between evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, whatever enlightened denomination you attend, etc.  It's all religious lunacy to them; it's all for people who believe in fairies and hocus pocus and superstition.  Whenever they say terrible things about evangelicals, no matter how much it may delight you and no matter how much you hate the Trump voting evangelicals along with them, they are not saying it as someone on the same side of the aisle as you.  If you are a Christian, they are not your ideological allies.* They think you believe utter nonsense and that you are foolish for believing such nonsense and that you are indoctrinating your children cult-style into believing such nonsense by taking them to church.  Yet in my experiences old liberal Christians are often more likely to oppose younger Christians who are arguing against purely ideological views in these discussions.   

*Though they certainly can be your close friends and one should treat all others with respect and dignity and kindness regardless of their beliefs.  Ideological opponent does not mean enemy.

On 5/19/2018 at 4:58 AM, bolverk said:

Personally, I find it would be an error in reasoning to believe the accounts of miracles performed by Jesus: he walked on water; he healed lepers with a touch; he cured the blind; he fed hundreds with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread; he turned water into wine; he was dead for three days and then came back to life (sort of as a ghost-spirit thing). As a critical thinker, logic tells me those are impossibilities.

Why should I defer to the authority of second- or third-hand stories (even provisionally) told by illiterate fishermen and superstitious goat herders from the bronze age? If they're telling me these kinds of unbelievable stories about a god-man, why should I even accept that the individual they're describing is real when they've already lost their credibility?

Essentially, you're asking me to discard all logic and do something akin to taking the word of the ancients that the exploits of Jason and the Argonauts or Hercules were entirely real and unfabricated when most likely their stories are allegorical and only based (maybe) on a kernel of truth.

I don't care to spend any more time on this topic.  Like many of you I only have a small amount of time to spend discussing things on the internet and so I prefer to spend the majority of it on topics which I find interesting and on debates that I think possess the potential for both sides to learn from.   This is not one of those topics.  If you've honestly looked into the evidence and think the comparison to Hercules is a fair representation of the arguments given for the existence of Jesus, then I don't think it would be a very fruitful discussion regardless.   

[Brisketexan 104709]

32 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

What you may not be aware of, at least not to its full gravity, is the growing significance for younger generations of the ideological dispute against belief in the supernatural.  Posters like WTB do not give a shit about the differences between evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, whatever enlightened denomination you attend, etc.  It's all religious lunacy to them; it's all for people who believe in fairies and hocus pocus and superstition.  Whenever they say terrible things about evangelicals, no matter how much it may delight you and no matter how much you hate the Trump voting evangelicals along with them, they are not saying it as someone on the same side of the aisle as you.  If you are a Christian, they are not your ideological allies.* They think you believe utter nonsense and that you are foolish for believing such nonsense and that you are indoctrinating your children cult-style into believing such nonsense by taking them to church.  Yet in my experiences old liberal Christians are often more likely to oppose younger Christians who are arguing against purely ideological views in these discussions.   

Very good thoughts, and well-stated.  However....you're missing the underlying point that BC and I are trying to get at.

Yes, the "younger generation" is becoming more atheist/agnostic/anti-"faith." Where BC and I come from is....why is that the case?  Is Christianity -- as many of us understand the Gospel-based faith -- so incompatible with their worldview?  OR....is there a problem arising from the fact that the loudest, most visible segment of Christianity is the fundagelicals (the politicized, anti-science, discriminatory, etc. folks)?

Think of it this way.  Texas A&M is just a university.  In many endeavors, it has decent, even good, academics.  And, most of us DO know some "good aggies" -- that is, they are educated, smart professionals, and they don't buy into the aggy cult stuff.  Yet, most of us Longhorns remain utterly disgusted and appalled by aggies in general.  Why is that?  Because we see so many loudmouth ags exhibiting a near-psychotic, all-consuming hatred of another university; we saw the report on the bonfire collapse pointing to aggy groupthink and a culture against questioning authority as causes, and the ags received that report...and ignored it; we see their pathetic socially-retarded move to the SEC and pretending they were ALWAYS members of some big-boy club as just sad wannabe behavior.....and the list goes on.

As a result, we have a bad taste in our mouth for aggies in general.  We don't think a lot of the university or the graduates it produces.  It takes a lot to overcome our biases.

Young people are that way about "christianity."  The see the most visible self-professed christians in our society, and those folks are visible for all the wrong reasons.  If THAT is christianity (and to an outside observer, that's what it appears to be), why WOULDN'T they be utterly turned off by the whole thing?

I agree that  the conversation between folks like BC and me and younger folks may be a lost cause.  But we already KNOW that conversation with the fundagelicals is a lost cause.  So talking with the rational folks in the room -- even if they are going to be very hard to persuade -- seems like the best course of action.  Of course, it may all be a lost cause.  Christianity in the US may be dead (soon), and "christians" will have killed it.  So be it.  The Gospels will survive, the faith will survive, somewhere, somehow.  Maybe, if this current incarnation is what Christianity is destined to be here, better for it to die.

[David Dennison 18666]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes, the "younger generation" is becoming more atheist/agnostic/anti-"faith." Where BC and I come from is....why is that the case?  Is Christianity -- as many of us understand the Gospel-based faith -- so incompatible with their worldview?  OR....is there a problem arising from the fact that the loudest, most visible segment of Christianity is the fundagelicals (the politicized, anti-science, discriminatory, etc. folks)?

Science is removing much of life's mysteries. Religion is failing to answer the questions that remain. 

[Brisketexan 104709]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Science is removing much of life's mysteries. Religion is failing to answer the questions that remain. 

The truly sad thing is that the New Testament is almost entirely about matters that are aside and apart from scientific theory or discussion (yes, aside from the supernatural event of the resurrection).  Love God, love your neighbor as yourself; love and forgive your enemies, etc. etc. -- such principles are neither compatible nor incompatible with science -- they are aside and apart from it.

Yet....the battlegrounds of modern christianity are the pointless ones of either conflict with science (creationism.  Seriously, creationism), or of either supposedly great moral issues that  receive the barest of mention (if any) in the Gospels (seriously, giving a fuck about whether someone is gay or not is WAY down the list of subject matter in the Gospels -- being incensed about continuing poverty, now THAT'S a Gospel value....which modern fundagelicals actually couldn't give half a shit about, lip-service and half-assed missional work notwithstanding).

The naked truth of the Gospels is not only something that  we can hear and not  turn into a battleground, it's something that we all SHOULD care about and want to live.  But we're so busy focusing on arguing about the metaphorical shape of the table, and wood used to make it, and the seating arrangement, and who we get to exclude from the table....that we ignore the bounty sitting there right in front of us.

[Anastasis 23402]

Oh good.  More brisket analogies. What he fails to realize here is that is siding with the people that would reject all academic knowledge on account of some sheep fuckers from college station. American Christianity is a shit show because the constant erosion of theology and frankly christology that has brought us to this place. If "American" Christianity is dead, all the better.  Leave it to the dustpan of heretical history. 

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The truly sad thing is that the New Testament is almost entirely about matters that are aside and apart from scientific theory or discussion (yes, aside from the supernatural event of the resurrection).  Love God, love your neighbor as yourself; love and forgive your enemies, etc. etc. -- such principles are neither compatible nor incompatible with science -- they are aside and apart from it.

Well see, there's some common ground. 

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

 Yet....the battlegrounds of modern christianity are the pointless ones of either conflict with science (creationism.  Seriously, creationism), or of either supposedly great moral issues that  receive the barest of mention (if any) in the Gospels (seriously, giving a fuck about whether someone is gay or not is WAY down the list of subject matter in the Gospels -- being incensed about continuing poverty, now THAT'S a Gospel value....which modern fundagelicals actually couldn't give half a shit about, lip-service and half-assed missional work notwithstanding).

These are not the battle ground of modern Christianity.  

[Brisketexan 104709]

Just now, Anastasis said:

These are not the battle ground of modern Christianity.  

They are the visible and vocal ones.  That's what matters -- to the outside world, perception IS reality.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

These are not the battle ground of modern Christianity.  

It's not, but it is the battle ground of the ones that scream in our faces on street corners and university pavilions.

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

 The naked truth of the Gospels is not only something that  we can hear and not  turn into a battleground, it's something that we all SHOULD care about and want to live.  But we're so busy focusing on arguing about the metaphorical shape of the table, and wood used to make it, and the seating arrangement, and who we get to exclude from the table....that we ignore the bounty sitting there right in front of us.

More common ground. 

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

It's not, but it is the battle ground of the ones that scream in our faces on street corners and university pavilions.

You need to find some new street corners. And for the latter, you are a technological, so I am going to extend briskets atm analogy to rule out any experiences involving lubbock. 

[Anastasis 23402]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

They are the visible and vocal ones.  That's what matters -- to the outside world, perception IS reality.

I worry not for the outside world. It will continue on to the drum beat of history. I worry for the church. 

[Brian Fantana 6668]

I'll go the one YOUR MOM frequents

[Brisketexan 104709]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You need to find some new street corners. And for the latter, you are a technological, so I am going to extend briskets atm analogy to rule out any experiences involving lubbock. 

Anastasis...it doesn't matter what  you and I hear.  I am heavily involved  in the faith, I spend much time with people who say and do the right things.  So what?  I'm not the audience we're talking about.

We're talking about people from age 15-35: people who get their information and  experience of "christianity" from the news (in all media formats).  Mobile Loaves and Fishes doesn't get 1% of the print time that Dan Patrick bathroom bills and such get.  That's what people 15-35 think of Christianity: Dan Patrick and bathroom bills, and all the shit like that.  That's what Christianity is up against.

[Brisketexan 104709]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I worry not for the outside world. It will continue on to the drum beat of history. I worry for the church. 

Each seem bent on destroying themselves.  And if that is their chosen direction....let them.

[Anastasis 23402]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Anastasis...it doesn't matter what  you and I hear.  I am heavily involved  in the faith, I spend much time with people who say and do the right things.  So what?  I'm not the audience we're talking about.

We're talking about people from age 15-35: people who get their information and  experience of "christianity" from the news (in all media formats).  Mobile Loaves and Fishes doesn't get 1% of the print time that Dan Patrick bathroom bills and such get.  That's what people 15-35 think of Christianity: Dan Patrick and bathroom bills, and all the shit like that.  That's what Christianity is up against.

I care not about Dan Patrick. I care a good deal about mobile loaves and fishes. My kids will be packing meals there this summer. They are not old enough to distribute.

I am not particularly worried about the media marketing of Christianity in modern society.  Our best marketing push in history was when they were feeding us to lions. On second thought...

[David Dennison 18666]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I care not about Dan Patrick. I care a good deal about mobile loaves and fishes. My kids will be packing meals there this summer. They are not old enough to distribute.

I am not particularly worried about the media marketing of Christianity in modern society.  Our best marketing push in history was when they were feeding us to lions. On second thought...

And people wonder why martyrdom is so important to Islam.

[Anastasis 23402]

It's hard for me to fathom the depth of ignorance necessary to compare Christian martyrdom during the first few centuries of the christian movement to 20th century islamic "martyrdom". 

[Brisketexan 104709]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I care not about Dan Patrick. I care a good deal about mobile loaves and fishes. My kids will be packing meals there this summer. They are not old enough to distribute.

I am not particularly worried about the media marketing of Christianity in modern society.  Our best marketing push in history was when they were feeding us to lions. On second thought...

Don't blame the media.  Please, don't.  This not some organized conspiracy against christianity.

This is against loud, self-proclaimed christians shitting themselves, then smearing their shit on themselves and everyone they can reach.  And, by the way, actively controlling our state government on a platform of "we're gonna smear shit all over you."  That's news.  Don't blame the media for covering that.

And YOU aren't the person at issue here.  Great that you don't care about Dan Patrick.  But, the citizens of this state, being governed by an angry, fucking mean, self-proclaimed christian who vows to inflict his brand of christianity on everyone in the state...well, they kinda DO care.  And the young and intelligent ones see that as the face of christianity and rightly say "why in the fuck would I want ANYTHING to do with that?"

[Brisketexan 104709]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's hard for me to fathom the depth of ignorance necessary to compare Christian martyrdom during the first few centuries of the christian movement to 20th century islamic "martyrdom". 

Well, I mean....dead is dead.  So, there's SOME analog. 

 

[David Dennison 18666]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's hard for me to fathom the depth of ignorance necessary to compare Christian martyrdom during the first few centuries of the christian movement to 20th century islamic "martyrdom". 

It's equally hard for me the fathom the depth of ignorance necessary not to be able to see the connection.