Facts and science or anointed handkerchiefs?

[simplicio]

I never did identify it with true Christianity. And you should pay attention to the opn which I wrote (concerning other examples): "Fortunately many Christians don't think along those lines but many white Evangelical "Christians" bear responsibility for promoting and supporting actions and ways of thinking that helped worsen this mess and make it even worse than it needed to be."

I think quite many who call themselves Christians on this very forum are acting contrary to what they claim to believe. Some to the extent where I would say I refuse to regard them as Christians. That, however, does nothing to take away the fact that they say what they say, support what they support... Even when the consequences are obviously tragic.

Ahhh, True Christianity, always undefined, yet it is always someone else who is not the true Christian!

[mikewhitney]

Ahhh, True Christianity, always undefined, yet it is always someone else who is not the true Christian!

I recognized the problem of defining Christians for scholarly discussions. The best way to narrow down the meaning, for my purposes, is to speak of confessional Christianity -- those Christians who do affirm (or would not reject) traditional confessions. In this fashion, I narrow the focus to Christians who reckonize that Christ was raised from the dead for the justification of people before God. I have not really had to do this in my writings but anticipate this will be needed.

For Charles, I would note again that the effects are not tragic in two cases -- the first is if the media has presented unbalanced discussion in order to hype up the problem. The second is that the group she derides is likely a small group who are offering protection through blessed handkerchieves.

[Charles]

Ahhh, True Christianity, always undefined, yet it is always someone else who is not the true Christian!

I am not a Christian myself so it does not only apply to "someone else" in this case. If the term is to mean anything at all I do not feel like you can apply it everywhere. In this very thread some Christians seem to think along those lines as well.

[Charles]

[...]It is sensible enough if you personally don't feel that God, scriptures, and Christianity are convincing to you. But, it may be better to be humble enough to accept the possibility that the Christian message is true -- and to refrain from using examples of heretics to define your image of Christianity.

Do you mean to imply that some or all of the persons I refer to are heretics? Do you include Jerry Falwell Jr. among the heretics?

And like I have already pointed out: I certainly do not use these people or many of the people who like to call themselves "Christians" on tweb to define my image of Christianity.

[mikewhitney]

Do you mean to imply that some or all of the persons I refer to are heretics? Do you include Jerry Falwell Jr. among the heretics?

And like I have already pointed out: I certainly do not use these people or many of the people who like to call themselves "Christians" on tweb to define my image of Christianity.

My post was in reaction to Kenneth Copeland -- who I probably misstated his position with respect to the confessions.

I don't know what Jerry Falwell Jr is like. My concern is that the media, instead of just noting that one group of Christians is doing something weird, tries to generalize behavior as representative of all of Evangelical Christians. The Times also throws in Trump's name too -- which, for me, just shows the bias of the writer who seeks to target Trump and Christians at the same time. It is pure racist-level of politics -- trying to deny the views of, what I think has been stated elsewhere, 25% percent of voters or of America.

Hopefully you are of the mindset that, while you don't understand why someone would be a Christian, you are tolerant that many people are Christians for good reasons, even that God may exist and is worthy of worship.

[Charles]

My post was in reaction to Kenneth Copeland -- who I probably misstated his position with respect to the confessions.

I don't know what Jerry Falwell Jr is like. My concern is that the media, instead of just noting that one group of Christians is doing something weird, tries to generalize behavior as representative of all of Evangelical Christians. The Times also throws in Trump's name too -- which, for me, just shows the bias of the writer who seeks to target Trump and Christians at the same time. It is pure racist-level of politics -- trying to deny the views of, what I think has been stated elsewhere, 25% percent of voters or of America.

Hopefully you are of the mindset that, while you don't understand why someone would be a Christian, you are tolerant that many people are Christians for good reasons, even that God may exist and is worthy of worship.

The idea that this is mainly about media being unbalanced seems a bit unbalanced in itself. The truth is that Trump has got a large following among white Evangelicals who continue to support him seemingly no matter what. Some of those people do things that are relly weird others not so much. I have read a lot of media coverage about the alliance between Trump and most Evangelicals. Quite many point out the irony that what those Christians support and do seemingly contradict Christian values and the statements of Jesus. Your idea that they generalize to Christianity in general or even Evangelicals in particular is not one I recognize (that is not to say it does not exist).

Case in point. I have made you aware that a very prominent Evangelical said the following about corona: "You know, impeachment didn’t work, and the Mueller report didn’t work, and Article 25 didn’t work, and so maybe now this is their next, ah, their next attempt to get Trump,”

Jerry Falwell Jr. said this. It is not a problem caused by the media and of course they have to point out that he says such foolish things.

[simplicio]

I am not a Christian myself so it does not only apply to "someone else" in this case. If the term is to mean anything at all I do not feel like you can apply it everywhere. In this very thread some Christians seem to think along those lines as well.

I was referring to the way Christians use the term.

When the topic turns toward progressive Christians, race, criticizing Trump, complementarianism, etc., passionate divides are highlighted. The fact is that many Christians are pretty confused on what real Christianity is, one moment those things are described as anti-Christian but when real life examples are presented, then it changes. Note the love-hate relationship with MLK, Bonhoffer, brothers Niebuhr; the controversies surrounding the whole CRT resolution of the SBC, the "elite" Christians such as Mark Galli (Christianity Today editorial criticizing Trump) or Mark Noll (Scandal of the Evangelical Mind).

[Sparko]

wow. Charles and Simplicio in the same thread. This gonna be interesting!

[Charles]

wow. Charles and Simplicio in the same thread. This gonna be interesting!

Well, despite all my very good posts things are moving a bit slowly in this thread, I would say

I usually like Simplicio's posts.

[mikewhitney]

The idea that this is mainly about media being unbalanced seems a bit unbalanced in itself. The truth is that Trump has got a large following among white Evangelicals who continue to support him seemingly no matter what. Some of those people do things that are relly weird others not so much. I have read a lot of media coverage about the alliance between Trump and most Evangelicals. Quite many point out the irony that what those Christians support and do seemingly contradict Christian values and the statements of Jesus. Your idea that they generalize to Christianity in general or even Evangelicals in particular is not one I recognize (that is not to say it does not exist).

Case in point. I have made you aware that a very prominent Evangelical said the following about corona: "You know, impeachment didn’t work, and the Mueller report didn’t work, and Article 25 didn’t work, and so maybe now this is their next, ah, their next attempt to get Trump,”

Jerry Falwell Jr. said this. It is not a problem caused by the media and of course they have to point out that he says such foolish things.

I don't see how you still cannot see what this editorial is doing. If people were supporting Obama, the press never claimed there was a problem. But if they accept the current President (who has access to lots of information that even the press normally doesn't have), there is fear that people are listening to him. The media tries to discredit Christians as being ignorant buffoons (unless the Christians are liberal atheists) and uses this narrow case as leverage for the image the media wants to create. The liberal socialist agenda wishes to do away with its biggest opponent -- the confessional Christian. Then, the libs can do whatever atroticities they so desire --without much opposition.

And all Presidents go against Christian values. I'm not sure why anyone would highlight it now. Oh wait. I would see why it is highlighted -- the President is Trump instead of Obama. There is a degree of predictability here.

[Sparko]

Well, despite all my very good posts things are moving a bit slowly in this thread, I would say

I usually like Simplicio's posts.

When he first joined I suspected him of being a sock puppet of yours. Now I am just curious if you two will reinforce your troll powers synergistically, or just cancel each other out.

[rogue06]

wow. Charles and Simplicio in the same thread. This gonna be interesting!

Now all that we need is carpe and the Ebony Triad will be complete. 00000000000000aaa3ca2x.gif



Oh. We'll still need a... shrubbery!

[seer]

I wonder where this will go?

Tampa megachurch pastor arrested after leading packed services despite 'safer-at-home' orders

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/tampa-me...at-home-orders

[mikewhitney]

I wonder where this will go?

Tampa megachurch pastor arrested after leading packed services despite 'safer-at-home' orders

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/tampa-me...at-home-orders

There certainly is an issue of freedom of religion. The problem is that people after this virus issue is over will be told that the lockdown worked -- and the media will still say that Christians threatened the community and are evil but "we" are lucky that other people quarantined themselves -- that this quarantine saved us despite the dissenters.

The abortion industry is suing for the right to increase the death toll at this time.

[Sparko]

once people start getting sick in these Word of Faith churches, and they can't be "cured" by the snake oil preacher, maybe they will finally realize what phony they have been following.

Note, I do believe God can and does heal people, but NOT on command in a circus set up to promote sales of handkerchiefs, anointing oil and books.