Evangelicals full of fear

[simplicio]

You were pretty sure that i would say "yes" and now you can be completely sure: yes.

I would add that First Things describe their policy like this:



Along those lines, and along another example i provided, it is just a diversion. What further speaks to underline the fact that it is, indeed, diversion, is that Cow Poke failed to account for all the situations in which it should or could be capital "E" according to Merriam Webster's dictionary. Thus, even in his diversion, he is not able fully account for it himself and has to rely on a random quora user's definition.

There are currently more than 130 posts in the thread and very, very few try to even adress the points made in the opening post. What further speaks to support the idea that it is diversion is that Cow Poke never has and seemingly never will be able to adress the points in the opening post. He made some unfounded statements about homesexuality only to turn to the capital "E" diversion which has now be revealed to be based on his own (or the random quora user's) very limited understanding of the definitions and use of it.

Happy Easter to all of you.

A quick look at the discussions, and the threads, shows the fear mongering, the WHO wants lock kids up (if it was about Trump, evangelicals would find a way to parse it differently), etc.

What did you expect? Whenever something is posted which does not exalt evangelicals or Christianity, the go-to rhetorical device is to divert to an irrelevancy, to cast doubt on the bona fides of the Christian, and avoid any discussion of the OP. The OP's quote of Fea is about fear and hope being lived out among Christians.

I will miss the midnight mass on Easter this year. It is a beautiful and profound liturgy (even though it is in the middle of the night). I have listened to it for years and always pick up on another point which I missed in the past.

[Charles]

Quora handles that pretty well here.

I’m an evangelical Christian (small-e), but not an Evangelical Christian (capital-E). The difference is this: “evangelical” means that we share the Gospel, the Good News about the redemption God offers through Jesus’ sacrifice. “Evangelical” refers to a specific set of views that have come to be lumped together since the latter half of the twentieth century, suggesting a particular agenda blending patriotism, religion, and politics.

Pretty much, when you capitalize it, you're referring to the "right wing" evangelicals.

Unless, of course, you go to an encyclopedia instead of a quora definition. According to ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA:

Christian Evangelicals, who represented roughly 25 percent of the U.S. population at the start of the 21st century, do not uniformly share all the views of fundamentalists or the Christian Right. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Evangelicalism

I am sure Cow Poke will note the "E".

[Charles]

A quick look at the discussions, and the threads, shows the fear mongering, the WHO wants lock kids up (if it was about Trump, evangelicals would find a way to parse it differently), etc.

What did you expect? Whenever something is posted which does not exalt evangelicals or Christianity, the go-to rhetorical device is to divert to an irrelevancy, to cast doubt on the bona fides of the Christian, and avoid any discussion of the OP. The OP's quote of Fea is about fear and hope being lived out among Christians.

I will miss the midnight mass on Easter this year. It is a beautiful and profound liturgy (even though it is in the middle of the night). I have listened to it for years and always pick up on another point which I missed in the past.

Your post reminded me of this:

The problem does not lie in Christianity but in the moral formation of Christians. Are they getting their view of refugees from Christian sources? Or are they taking their view from Fox News, talk radio and Trump? I suspect the latter. And the worship of political idols is ultimately a spiritual problem — a different kind of blasphemy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a93_story.html

And I repeat: "The problem does not lie in Christianity [...]". Some, however, seem to think that their mix of institutionalized religion and political power simply is Christianity, which is why they see people supporting basic moral principles as anti-Christian.

[oxmixmudd]

Part of my job is to stand up to hypocrisy, Jim.



Oh, sheeeeesh..... Please, Jim, SPARE me the holier-than-thou crap. You are about the LAST person on this board that should be lecturing Christians on "the kind thing to do".

But, hey - the anti-Christian 'peanut gallery' is singing your praises and kissing your butt, so....

No CP, the people here that use reason and logic as a basis for their positions and comments, Christian and non Christian, tend to find agreement with me more often than folks like you, MM, likpix, Mike witney etc. That is the difference you should note.

You want to characterize it as a faith difference, I get that. But that is not the actual difference. But on that, you have completely lost sight of some of the most basic tenets of our faith, which focus almost completely on our personal character and inner basic attitudes towards others. You are comfortable with and even defend a constant denigratuon of others on this site. This is not what Christ calls us to. And as a result I have great concern for you.

However, with your tendency to dig in which will corrupt your soul even further I'm putting you on virtual ignore in the hope you will let God speak to you on this while I remove myself from the picture. I pray you will allow Him to change you in this area.

Good by CP.

[oxmixmudd]

Your post reminded me of this:



And I repeat: "The problem does not lie in Christianity [...]". Some, however, seem to think that their mix of institutionalized religion and political power simply is Christianity, which is why they see people supporting basic moral principles as anti-Christian.

You have really hit the nail on the head there Charles. Modern 'E'vangelical Christianity has become an unholy alliance between conservative american politics where worldly hate and hostility supplant the teachings of Christ when what Christ taught demands a break with that same politics.

But dont make the mistake of thinking this unfortunate element is the whole story, or that one can somehow characterize an entire group of people fully by this trend. Most 'E'vangelicals are still the sort of people that will see a homeless man and try to help, even if they will side with Trump on immigration. Who will invite a troubled teen into their homes and take them under their wing.

Case in point, Franklin Graham. A staunch Trump supporter, runs a massive relief organization Samaritan's Purse that sends hospital ships to poor countries and which has been instrumental in relief in various disasters across the world, including the Christmas tidal wave in 2004/2005.

It's a bizarre situation, but one which so far resists resolution.

[Mountain Man]

No CP, the people here that use reason and logic as a basis for their positions and comments, Christian and non Christian, tend to find agreement with me more often than folks like you, MM, likpix, Mike witney etc.

It's not the "reason and logic" we disagree with, it's the premises. As the Doctor once said, "Logic, my dear, simply allows one to be wrong with authority."

I'm curious, though, have you ever stopped to wonder why you find yourself agreeing more with the non-Christians on this forum than with your fellow Christians? I know it would at least give me pause if I was constantly out of step with others who shared my faith.

[Cow Poke]

But I am interested in hearing from Christians here.

[Cow Poke]

No CP

Yes, Jim

Please do get well soon.

[Cow Poke]

Which I actually did at an earlier state in this thread since I trusted Cow Poke's statement about my use of it being in error.

You're still in error, you're just trying to find different reasons to justify it.

[Cow Poke]

Unless, of course, you go to an encyclopedia instead of a quora definition. According to ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA:

Let's try this, Charles -- by which of your newly discovered definitions (which, by the way, confirm my assertion that there is a difference between Evangelical and evangelical) fits Fea?

[simplicio]

Other than posting as an excuse to troll, you could try answering the questions.

Is John Fea an evangelical? (note the letter e is lower case)

[Cow Poke]

Other than posting as an excuse to troll, you could try answering the questions.

Is John Fea an evangelical? (note the letter e is lower case)

He says he is, yes. I have nothing to show that he is not.

(And look at the accusing others of trolling! )

[Cow Poke]

If Cow Poke or others want to ignore Merriam Webster's dictionary in favour of a random quora user it is their choice. However, their "correction" of others should be seen in the light of them doing so...

Charles, honey, sweetie pie.... you were not aware of any distinction AT ALL until I pointed it out, and you had to be dragged to that conclusion kicking and screaming. And I'm well aware that there is broad interpretation of what, exactly constitutes the "capital E" Evangelical, but the fact remains, there is most certainly a distinction.

[Charles]

Let's try this, Charles -- by which of your newly discovered definitions (which, by the way, confirm my assertion that there is a difference between Evangelical and evangelical) fits Fea?

After having been shown to be wrong numerous times or at least have a limited understanding, now you want to act as if you need to test the application of the descriptions of use and definitions? What are you going to hold it up against. Another random definition by another random poster? Some of the examples I gave are examples of always using "E". Always applies in this case to. Use some basic logic and you will understand it.

Your time to act as if you are the expert is long gone given the number of posts in which I have shown you to have a very, very limited understanding. Try some real and more trustworthy sources next time and don't assume people by into your dubious definitions.

[Charles]

Charles, honey, sweetie pie.... you were not aware of any distinction AT ALL until I pointed it out, and you had to be dragged to that conclusion kicking and screaming. And I'm well aware that there is broad interpretation of what, exactly constitutes the "capital E" Evangelical, but the fact remains, there is most certainly a distinction.

If you were aware then you gave an explanation you knew was very limited at best. In some cases simply wrong. Well done.