Evangelical Christians

[Fozzz 152]

I didn't know the term was developed by pollsters to make Christians look bad.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

3 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

i'm a YEC.  i believe the universe was literally created as the Bible said and as Jesus affirmed.  i believe just as God created adam in his mature adult form, the universe/earth was also created in its mature form.  looking at it from a scientific perspective the earth and universe will look hundreds of millions and billions of years old.  for me it comes down to whose authority i'm choosing to believe.  

I'm not going to question or belittle your religious faith, but what you are describing has never made sense to me. Meaning - Faith and scientific observation are so different as to be mutually exclusive;  if a thing is known from observation and testing no faith is required for belief, and if something is an matter of faith the absence of supportive tested observation is a feature. Thus, "belief" in an observed reality and matter of faith cannot be contrary, and the choice between them could not be made on the basis of any external authority.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I’ve never heard someone self identify as an evangelical.  Typically folks will say they are Christian and if pressed give the denomination they attend. The term was developed to lump large groups together for political demographic purposes.  People now use it as a pejorative to reference what they believe to be a monolithic group of hateful nationalists whose sole purpose was to get Trump in office.  They often have some crazy uncle or father in law that they can give an anecdotal reference for what all evangelicals must be like.  Similar to how entire races of people must be like the few representatives you know. 

This post is so dumb it's almost not worth a response, but for the record I think you mean "fundamentalist". Many Christians describe themselves as evangelical. 

Here's a good article with real data that deals with the topic of your post. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[atomheartbevo 90650]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I’ve never heard someone self identify as an evangelical.  Typically folks will say they are Christian and if pressed give the denomination they attend. The term was developed to lump large groups together for political demographic purposes.  People now use it as a pejorative to reference what they believe to be a monolithic group of hateful nationalists whose sole purpose was to get Trump in office.  They often have some crazy uncle or father in law that they can give an anecdotal reference for what all evangelicals must be like.  Similar to how entire races of people must be like the few representatives you know. 

This is all anecdotal, but I hear folks at my wife's church (Baptist and a large Baptist church at that) use the term and/or self-identify as evangelicals all the time.  This is a church with a large Hispanic and Korean/Asian population, and a smaller Indian (India Indians) population, and they send folks on missionary work to South America, Africa, and India on a fairly regular basis.

What I don't hear them use is "fundamentalist" and I doubt any of them want any association with that term, even though some of the older folks would definitely be identified as fundamentalists in times past.

And I've also heard plenty that make it very clear they are uncomfortable with Trump, up to and including the lead pastor.

And I've heard more than one story from somebody in her Sunday school group (ages 20s-50s) that started off with "I have a friend who is gay/atheist/whatever, and I've prayed for them for years, and they are going through a tough time right now, etc., etc., etc."  In other words, they maybe Baptist, probably even consider themselves evangelical, but unlike their parents' or grandparents' generation, they have friends that are gay/atheist/etc.

I do believe there is a trend among the younger folks, because I hear things in a mainstream Baptist church these days that I wouldn't have 10 or 20 years ago, and if a lot of the older and more stricter denominations want to stay relevant, they are going to not only embrace these younger folks, but make sure they don't alienate them at some point.

[gsoda3 3362]

32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not going to question or belittle your religious faith, but what you are describing has never made sense to me. Meaning - Faith and scientific observation are so different as to be mutually exclusive;  if a thing is known from observation and testing no faith is required for belief, and if something is an matter of faith the absence of supportive tested observation is a feature. Thus, "belief" in an observed reality and matter of faith cannot be contrary, and the choice between them could not be made on the basis of any external authority.

thanks, and i'm familiar enough with your posting history to know that's not your intent. 

 

i understand your point and it makes sense.  for us, first and foremost we believe there is a God, and then after that we believe in a 100% human 100% God figure who died and came back to life.  so to believe those two basic tenets is already moving past the realm of observed reality. 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, YChang said:

 

 

Man, Christians just can’t get a break in this country!

 

 

Deliberate misrepresentation. 

35 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This post is so dumb it's almost not worth a response, but for the record I think you mean "fundamentalist". Many Christians describe themselves as evangelical. 

Here's a good article with real data that deals with the topic of your post. 

If you create a poll with limited options with selected terms, you can get people to select options that they wouldn’t ordinarily self identify as.  There is a big difference between self categorization and answering yes or no to someone else’s question with a proposed term. If you click the many links to get to the actual study, you’ll find that’s exactly what they did. This outcome is a basic & intended property of simplified polls such as these.  Like most posters here, I’ve lived in Bible Belt states most of my life and have never personally heard someone self identify as one.  I’ve never even heard the term used to define a group of people until recently; and the term is almost always used when discussing politics.  Maybe your experiences are different.  

Edited May 14, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I’ve never heard someone self identify as an evangelical.  Typically folks will say they are Christian and if pressed give the denomination they attend. The term was developed to lump large groups together for political demographic purposes.  People now use it as a pejorative to reference what they believe to be a monolithic group of hateful nationalists whose sole purpose was to get Trump in office.  They often have some crazy uncle or father in law that they can give an anecdotal reference for what all evangelicals must be like.  Similar to how entire races of people must be like the few representatives you know. 

All of this. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This post is so dumb it's almost not worth a response, but for the record I think you mean "fundamentalist". Many Christians describe themselves as evangelical. 

Here's a good article with real data that deals with the topic of your post. 

Everything you just posted supported what he said. I’ve never heard anyone self-identify as an evangelical in my life. He’s exactly correct. 

Your linked article has this:  “only 1 in 100 Americans would take on the term if it had nothing to do with politics.” 

[CooterBrown 18288]

The last 150 years or so have created a bizarre world of biblical "truth," which has been twisted to require a literalism of allegory that is totally unnecessary and inexplicably dismissive of the origin and context of the stories (and yes, the creation myth is a story) that make up the Jewish holy tradition. 

I went to a wedding at St Mary’s in Austin a few weeks ago. The priest said “the Bible isn’t a history book. It’s a philosophy book.” I immediately wondered how many people lost their shit when he said that.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Everything you just posted supported what he said. I’ve never heard anyone self-identify as an evangelical in my life. He’s exactly correct. 

Your linked article has this:  “only 1 in 100 Americans would take on the term if it had nothing to do with politics.” 

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. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, 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. 

I think his post was pretty accurate. I know what evangelical means in the historical and modern church.  So, in a thread about evangelicals such as this, I say “that’s me.”  However, I would never initially self-identify as such. Rather, I’d say “Methodist”, “Christian” or “Protestant”, probably in that order, before I even thought about evangelical. 

Anecotal, but the only time I hear the term is as a political pejorative or by the media (usually in either a pejorative or matter-of-fact manner discussing a political topic). 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 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. 

I did not claim that the term was almost exclusively a pejorative political signifier.  I said that the term is primarily used for political demographic purposes and is now used as a pejorative by some.  

If the term is an important identifier for certain Christians, then why do few churches (none at all, as far as I'm aware) include the title in their denominational or congregational name?  Drive around town and see how many churches have the term "Evangelical" as an identifier on their sign out front.  There is no "Evangelical" creed, authoritative body, or self proclaimed evangelical denomination (i.e. no group claiming "we are the Evangelical church").  There is no such thing as a cohesive Evangelical theology.  From a theological point of view it makes no sense to even use the term to identify or categorize groups of Christians, as they all strive to be evangelical in one sense or another.  

 

2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I think his post was pretty accurate. I know what evangelical means in the historical and modern church.  So, in a thread about evangelicals such as this, I say “that’s me.”  However, I would never initially self-identify as such. Rather, I’d say “Methodist”, “Christian” or “Protestant”, probably in that order, before I even thought about evangelical. 

Anecotal, but the only time I hear the term is as a political pejorative or by the media (usually in either a pejorative or matter-of-fact manner discussing a political topic). 

Yep.  Its primary use is for grouping people for political evaluation purposes, as you highlighted in the article that Bozo Casanova linked. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Guest

[NWBuck 8629]

17 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

If the term is an important identifier for certain Christians, then why do few churches (none at all, as far as I'm aware) include the title in their denominational or congregational name? 

Evangelical Free Church in America

Evangelical Covenant Church

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America

But your point still stands...

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I think his post was pretty accurate. I know what evangelical means in the historical and modern church.  So, in a thread about evangelicals such as this, I say “that’s me.”  However, I would never initially self-identify as such. Rather, I’d say “Methodist”, “Christian” or “Protestant”, probably in that order, before I even thought about evangelical. 

I'm not sure I follow your point and I don't mean to be combative. 'Evangelical' isn't a denomination. The way you are self-identifying above is the kind of self-identification I was referring to. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not sure I follow your point and I don't mean to be combative. 'Evangelical' isn't a denomination. The way you are self-identifying above is the kind of self-identification I was referring to. 

I don’t think you’re being combative with me. I’m aware it’s not a denomination. Neither is “Christian”. 

Honestly I’m confused on why you were picking apart his post. 

[Gatorubet 30720]

11 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

i'm a YEC.  i believe the universe was literally created as the Bible said and as Jesus affirmed.  i believe just as God created adam in his mature adult form, the universe/earth was also created in its mature form.  looking at it from a scientific perspective the earth and universe will look hundreds of millions and billions of years old.  for me it comes down to whose authority i'm choosing to believe.  

Nice theological conclusion!

Looks good on you though...

 

 

[TwiceHorn 32079]

I don't believe "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is really fairly interpreted as an injunction to pay your taxes.

[TwiceHorn 32079]

13 hours ago, F250 said:

I believe he is a member of a UMC church. The UMC as a denomination officially supports the scientific theory and opposes any attempt to address creationism or ID in public schools. The UMC also opposes the advocacy of YEC/ID within the UMC organization. Methodists are not known for holding fundamentalist positions like creationism.

 

As my Mother used to say, though, there are a lot of recovering Baptists in the Methodist Church.  There's a lot of ignorance of the official positions of the UMC within congregations.

[F250 29201]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As my Mother used to say, though, there are a lot of recovering Baptists in the Methodist Church.  There's a lot of ignorance of the official positions of the UMC within congregations.

LOL They do tend to stray in the doors every now and then.  Usually the reciting of creeds scares them off.

[El Diablo 4232]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't believe "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is really fairly interpreted as an injunction to pay your taxes.

[DixonHur 11959]

What people believe is their business, but I can't abide by religious beliefs influencing legislation.  Your religious freedom shouldn't effect my personal liberties.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

8 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

 

I went to a wedding at St Mary’s in Austin a few weeks ago. The priest said “the Bible isn’t a history book. It’s a philosophy book.” I immediately wondered how many people lost their shit when he said that.

 

Everything he just said was wrong.

1. It is history.

2. It's not philosophy.

3. It's not a book.

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Everything he just said was wrong.

1. It is history.

2. It's not philosophy.

3. It's not a book.

Some of it is history. Most of it is not.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Re: GSoda and Creationism

 

I am a Catholic and therefore support the position of the Church on science. And being the Church, the position hasn't changed since forever.

It has always been the Catholic position that the study of nature (science) is the study of the word of God revealed through nature. That's why all of the early universities were sanctioned by the Vatican. The Sorbonne, Oxford, Padua, Bologna, etc. had their roots in christian or monastic schools. In some places the teachers were paid directly by the church. 

Universities used a teaching method called Scholasticism. This method emphasized dialectical reasoning , it was basically a search for objective truth. And since the natural world was simply the word of God revealed, if something was demonstrated as true, it didn't make sense for the church to deny it, since that truth was in fact the word of God itself. The church didn't interfere with learning. Academic freedom was established very early in the life of the university and was a result of Catholic practice and belief.

Joseph Kepler published a work supporting heliocentrism which was welcomed by the Jesuits years before Galileo published his work. So it was established that the church didn't have an issue with heliocentrism per se, which makes it obvious that Galileo must have been punished for something more than just his theory, which wasn't new. 

The first scholarly suggestion of the Big Bang Theory was a catholic monseigneur.

There is no contradiction between science and the church. It's certainly popular to be misinformed about this but that doesn't make it true. There are a very small number of christians who deny science and they do great damage to truth because of the outsize voice they are given by a media with an anti-christian agenda.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

What people believe is their business, but I can't abide by religious beliefs influencing legislation.  Your religious freedom shouldn't effect my personal liberties.

People's fundamental beliefs are going to influence the way they vote.  There's no way around it.  This is true for every type of worldview; replace "religion" with "worldview" and it becomes:

"What people believe is their business, but I can't abide by people's worldviews influencing legislation.  Your worldview freedom shouldn't effect my personal liberties."

Of course this is nonsense.  Replacing worldview with religion doesn't make it not nonsense.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

As far as young earth theories, I suppose one could also say that a higher power made the universe last Friday, built the universe to look like 13.8 billion years old, and no of us existed before then.   All of our histories and memories were just created a moment ago. It’s impossible to prove otherwise.  Makes as much sense saying universe was created 4000 years ago.   

Or we are all a simulation housed in a computer somewhere.  Someone tweaks a few variables and runs the program for a millionth time to see the new outcome in a blink of an eye for them.

what if CAT spells dog?

 

 

[gsoda3 3362]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Re: GSoda and Creationism

 

I am a Catholic and therefore support the position of the Church on science. And being the Church, the position hasn't changed since forever.

It has always been the Catholic position that the study of nature (science) is the study of the word of God revealed through nature. That's why all of the early universities were sanctioned by the Vatican. The Sorbonne, Oxford, Padua, Bologna, etc. had their roots in christian or monastic schools. In some places the teachers were paid directly by the church. 

Universities used a teaching method called Scholasticism. This method emphasized dialectical reasoning , it was basically a search for objective truth. And since the natural world was simply the word of God revealed, if something was demonstrated as true, it didn't make sense for the church to deny it, since that truth was in fact the word of God itself. The church didn't interfere with learning. Academic freedom was established very early in the life of the university and was a result of Catholic practice and belief.

Joseph Kepler published a work supporting heliocentrism which was welcomed by the Jesuits years before Galileo published his work. So it was established that the church didn't have an issue with heliocentrism per se, which makes it obvious that Galileo must have been punished for something more than just his theory, which wasn't new. 

The first scholarly suggestion of the Big Bang Theory was a catholic monseigneur.

There is no contradiction between science and the church. It's certainly popular to be misinformed about this but that doesn't make it true. There are a very small number of christians who deny science and they do great damage to truth because of the outsize voice they are given by a media with an anti-christian agenda.

there is a definite contradiction between what the early church believed (which was a natural extension of what the jewish faith taught) and what the roman catholic church has now come to believe wrt the origins of the universe. 

[Gatorubet 30720]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

There is no contradiction between science and the church. It's certainly popular to be misinformed about this but that doesn't make it true. There are a very small number of christians who deny science and they do great damage to truth because of the outsize voice they are given by a media with an anti-christian agenda.

First bold statement is false.   Second bold is just shit believed by folks with a high victim-hood personality.   IOW, "Saying 'Happy Holidays' is an attack on us."

But feel free to Martyr on. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

What people believe is their business, but I can't abide by religious beliefs influencing legislation.  Your religious freedom shouldn't effect my personal liberties.

Huh. Expound exactly how your personal liberties have been infringed. 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

12 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I didn't know the term was developed by pollsters to make Christians look bad.

Pedophile?

[blackmarketbaby 118]

The orchestra of reality.

politics are the percussion section.
religion or beliefs in general are the horns and harps.
sciences are the woodwinds and reeds.
economics is the strings that bind to whole symphany of syllables the few have composed to manage the many by the sweet poetry of self deception.
Reality is the living Hell people impose upon themselves with laws that give rights to characters while demanding liberties be sold to pay the costs of listening to the melody called humanity.

[Paul Wesley 3313]

13 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I’ve never heard someone self identify as an evangelical.  Typically folks will say they are Christian and if pressed give the denomination they attend. The term was developed to lump large groups together for political demographic purposes.  People now use it as a pejorative to reference what they believe to be a monolithic group of hateful nationalists whose sole purpose was to get Trump in office.  They often have some crazy uncle or father in law that they can give an anecdotal reference for what all evangelicals must be like.  Similar to how entire races of people must be like the few representatives you know. 

You think the term "evangelical" was "developed" (your word) for political demographic purposes, and not because those denominations' foundational doctrines call for believers to... you know... evangelize?

Interesting theory.  

 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Just now, Paul Wesley said:

You think the term "evangelical" was "developed" (your word) for political demographic purposes, and not because those denominations' foundational doctrines call for believers to... you know... evangelize?

Interesting theory.  

 

Think of the dialects within just the english language.
In the subjectivity of math we have addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, algebra, geometry, physics, does metaphysics come here or under quantum physics or psychiatry, anyway, plus economic theory that comes from geometric compounding as it relates to ancestry of single ancestors looking back for clues as to how they came to exist in the same moment shared by all of them.

[Paul Wesley 3313]

Yeah, I didn't actually need an explanation to a rhetorical question.   

Proselytizer out front shoulda told ya.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

Then why even reply Paul?

Edited May 15, 2018 by blackmarketbaby

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

7 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

There is no contradiction between science and the church.

Prior to the development of artificial insemination technology in the 18th century, the only way a human female could become pregnant was through sexual intercourse. A virgin pregnancy wasn't possible until the 1700's. 

The human brain can survive for about six minutes without oxygen. After that time a clinically dead human cannot be revived. No human being who's been dead for more than several minutes has ever been brought back to life. 

It's science that's resoundingly contradicted by church doctrine. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

30 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Prior to the development of artificial insemination technology in the 18th century, the only way a human female could become pregnant was through sexual intercourse. A virgin pregnancy wasn't possible until the 1700's. 

The human brain can survive for about six minutes without oxygen. After that time a clinically dead human cannot be revived. No human being who's been dead for more than several minutes has ever been brought back to life. 

It's science that's resoundingly contradicted by church doctrine. 

And on theory and accepted aerodynamics  a bumble bee can't fly.....

[El Diablo 4232]

41 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Prior to the development of artificial insemination technology in the 18th century, the only way a human female could become pregnant was through sexual intercourse. A virgin pregnancy wasn't possible until the 1700's. 

The human brain can survive for about six minutes without oxygen. After that time a clinically dead human cannot be revived. No human being who's been dead for more than several minutes has ever been brought back to life. 

It's science that's resoundingly contradicted by church doctrine. 

How were the Egyptian pyramids built with what are by modern standards only rudimentary mechanical techniques? There are great mysteries from recent human history that we cannot explain. Well, can't explain unless one considers alien intervention and a deep abiding faith in Ra.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

45 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And on theory and accepted aerodynamics  a bumble bee can't fly.....

Nah that’s just a disproved theory was quoted on a cartoon.

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

40 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

How were the Egyptian pyramids built with what are by modern standards only rudimentary mechanical techniques? There are great mysteries from recent human history that we cannot explain. Well, can't explain unless one considers alien intervention and a deep abiding faith in Ra.

We know the pyramids weren't built by Jewish slaves.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Prior to the development of artificial insemination technology in the 18th century, the only way a human female could become pregnant was through sexual intercourse. A virgin pregnancy wasn't possible until the 1700's. 

The human brain can survive for about six minutes without oxygen. After that time a clinically dead human cannot be revived. No human being who's been dead for more than several minutes has ever been brought back to life. 

It's science that's resoundingly contradicted by church doctrine. 

You have to give Mary credit. She committed to her story instead of just coming clean about fucking the mailman. 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

You have to give Mary credit. She committed to her story instead of just coming clean about fucking the mailman. 

Joseph could never show his face at the local pub. 

[El Diablo 4232]

I don't know how I'd respond to being a cuck to God Almighty. (to? for? of? by?...not sure how cucking works).

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I don't know how I'd respond to being a cuck to God Almighty. (to? for? of? by?...not sure how cucking works).

Think about it this way. Imagine your girlfriend who you have never fucked becomes pregnant and tells you its Gods baby. Do you believe that bullshit?

[Gengs1 2583]

I am sure they don’t care about science...

well until they need the medications for blood pressure, diabetes or any other conditions science has found to solve 

[safe sex 12010]

17 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

I am sure they don’t care about science...

well until they need the medications for blood pressure, diabetes or any other conditions science has found to solve 

I have met quite a few people who do not treat their diabetes because they have faith that the Lord will cure them of their ailment. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by trauma babe

[Gengs1 2583]

31 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I have met quite a few people who do not treat their diabetes because they have faith that the Lord will cure them of their ailment. 

We need to encourage that more, doctors are doing the devils work, ignore them and carry on.

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6866]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And on theory and accepted aerodynamics  a bumble bee can't fly.....

Come on dude, this is seriously the argument you use? You know that's bullshit right? No wonder you people are duped so easily.

[relapse98 634]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As my Mother used to say, though, there are a lot of recovering Baptists in the Methodist Church.  There's a lot of ignorance of the official positions of the UMC within congregations.

Boy you aint kidding. I wish every new Methodist was required to read the Book of Discipline - that should put them to sleep for about 2 years.

And don't get me started on the fact that if it takes a 900 page book to run a denomination, then you are doing it wrong.

Or the fact that there is more than 1 version of the Book of Discipline. Thank you Central Conferences.

[DixonHur 11959]

52 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

I have met quite a few people who do not treat their diabetes because they have faith that the Lord will cure them of their ailment. 

Darwinism at work.