Evangelicals full of fear

[Watermelon]

You mean Evangelical? You guys don't even know the terminology!

[Cow Poke]

As an atheist myself, I think atheists are all hate-filled bigots who live just to destroy Christianity.

Well, then, must be TRUERERER!!!!

[Cow Poke]

EGGzackly!!! Why claim he was? What was the purpose in that? Charles found an attack on Evangelicals that warmed the cockles of his heart, and it was much more delicious for him to assign it to a 'fellow Evangelical". Why else would he have included that in his screed?

Again, Fea makes his living writing articles and blogs and making speeches critical of Evangelicals, when, by Barna's definition (which you guys keep ignoring) Fea is not "himself an Evangelical".

[Sparko]

Well, then, must be TRUERERER!!!!

or am I a theist? That space thingy always confuses me.

[Watermelon]

What if frogs had wings?

No

[Watermelon]

EGGzackly!!! Why claim he was? What was the purpose in that? Charles found an attack on Evangelicals that warmed the cockles of his heart, and it was much more delicious for him to assign it to a 'fellow Evangelical". Why else would he have included that in his screed?

Again, Fea makes his living writing articles and blogs and making speeches critical of Evangelicals, when, by Barna's definition (which you guys keep ignoring) Fea is not "himself an Evangelical".

[Cow Poke]

Why am I not surprised?

In its entirety....

I see that you still have not understood that First Things among others use E all the time and that Cow Poke's quora definition by a random user was limited at best and in some cases wrong.

Charles - I gave ONE EXAMPLE which you seem to think was necessarily intended to be exhaustive and complete. You jump to such illogical conclusions.

George Barna does a good job of defining Evangelical:

[Cow Poke]

So, lemme break that down....

The first two points define "Born again Christians".
The next seven points, along with the first two, define "Evangelicals".

Mind you, this is Barna - a very well known and highly respected authority on Christianity, not just some 'historian/blogger' who has an axe to grind with Evangelicals....

1. they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today
2. and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

1. saying their faith is very important in their life today;
2. believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
3. believing that Satan exists;
4. believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works;
5. believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth;
6. asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches;
7. and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

[oxmixmudd]

The average person, non-evangelical, does not believe the world is 10,000 years old or so. 38% of Evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, does not see evolution as false. Most Evangelicals do (64%) (in defining 'average person' I am not saying irreligious or non-Christian, and 60% of those accept it as the history of life)

The average person, non-evangelical, does not reject the science related to Global Warming. Some 37% of evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, is not sitting around interpreting every effort at global unity as a sign of the rise of the anti-Christ. I don't have a stat for that.

There are significant differences between the average sort of scientific illiteracy in this country that is the fault of its culture and educational system failures and the sort of extreme denial of basic facts derived from science by a large percentage in the Evangelical community.

[Watermelon]

So, lemme break that down....

The first two points define "Born again Christians".
The next seven points, along with the first two, define "Evangelicals".

Mind you, this is Barna - a very well known and highly respected authority on Christianity, not just some 'historian/blogger' who has an axe to grind with Evangelicals....

1. they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today
2. and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

1. saying their faith is very important in their life today;
2. believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
3. believing that Satan exists;
4. believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works;
5. believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth;
6. asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches;
7. and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

So which is the point that disqualifies Fea?

[mikewhitney]

The average person, non-evangelical, does not believe the world is 10,000 years old or so. 38% of Evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, does not see evolution as false. Most Evangelicals do (64%) (in defining 'average person' I am not saying irreligious or non-Christian, and 60% of those accept it as the history of life)

The average person, non-evangelical, does not reject the science related to Global Warming. Some 37% of evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, is not sitting around interpreting every effort at global unity as a sign of the rise of the anti-Christ. I don't have a stat for that.

There are significant differences between the average sort of scientific illiteracy in this country that is the fault of its culture and educational system failures and the sort of extreme denial of basic facts derived from science by a large percentage in the Evangelical community.

It sounds like you will be one of the leading advocates of rebulding the Tower of Babel. Have you hired your architect yet?

How come you always have a similar view as the atheists? Somehow their views are more resonant with you than the view of Christians here. It is not that Evangelicals aren't scientifically literate; the problem is that we have fad pseudoscience thrust on people by the government schools. This science works nicely alongside the mainstream media lies. It gets so difficult to identify the truth because there are so many lies going out to the public. It is your apparent scientific illiteracy that seems to make you gullible. And you soak it all in. God have mercy on you.

[mikewhitney]

And within the Evangelical community, which does indeed span a large number of denominations (my own cadre of Evangelical Friends covers everything from Church of Christ to indpendent Charismatic, with a large number of your standard SBC, UMC, Assemblies of God, etc, etc. in between) The Evangelical community is broad and ecumenical in many ways. But they also are prone to the sorts of scientific illiteracy, fear, and conspiratorial nonsense I'm talking about. I've lived in it over 60 years, and my singing has put me in touch with just about every single significant expression of it.

I see. Because you are able to designate everything as conspiracy that is contrary to your view of the world, you do not have to engage in debate and discussion to see if there may be truths that you are overlooking. But you are able to denigrate your brothers since you have superiority of insight which is only possible to those who have special enlightenment. There may be many odd views that can be encountered --but you probably have not really researched anything to see if you might have errantly designated these all as nonsense.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson notes:
One of the great challenges in this world is
knowing enough about a subject to think you are right
but not enough about the subject to know you are wrong

[Watermelon]

It sounds like you will be one of the leading advocates of rebulding the Tower of Babel. Have you hired your architect yet?

How come you always have a similar view as the atheists? Somehow their views are more resonant with you than the view of Christians here. It is not that Evangelicals aren't scientifically literate; the problem is that we have fad pseudoscience thrust on people by the government schools. This science works nicely alongside the mainstream media lies. It gets so difficult to identify the truth because there are so many lies going out to the public. It is your apparent scientific illiteracy that seems to make you gullible. And you soak it all in. God have mercy on you.

I would think that there would easily be more Christians that hold a similar view to oxmixmudd worldwide than not.

[oxmixmudd]

It sounds like you will be one of the leading advocates of rebulding the Tower of Babel. Have you hired your architect yet?

How come you always have a similar view as the atheists? Somehow their views are more resonant with you than the view of Christians here. It is not that Evangelicals aren't scientifically literate; the problem is that we have fad pseudoscience thrust on people by the government schools. This science works nicely alongside the mainstream media lies. It gets so difficult to identify the truth because there are so many lies going out to the public. It is your apparent scientific illiteracy that seems to make you gullible. And you soak it all in. God have mercy on you.

I dont have similar views of atheists on many topics related to Christian faith. For example, I believe in the reality of a personal God and the bodily Resurrection of Christ. I believe in present day miracles and the ability of God to guide us in our lives, in answered prayer, in the power of God to redeem and transform lives through His Grace, Mercy, and Hope that is found in His Son.

Where we agree is in matters of science and the objective knowledge of the natural world that it brings. And where their worldview is influenced by our common western heritage which has its roots in the teachings of the Church and Judaism, in certain common moral underpinnings derived from it.

[oxmixmudd]

I see. Because you are able to designate everything as conspiracy that is contrary to your view of the world, you do not have to engage in debate and discussion to see if there may be truths that you are overlooking. But you are able to denigrate your brothers since you have superiority of insight which is only possible to those who have special enlightenment. There may be many odd views that can be encountered --but you probably have not really researched anything to see if you might have errantly designated these all as nonsense.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson notes:
One of the great challenges in this world is
knowing enough about a subject to think you are right
but not enough about the subject to know you are wrong

While I agree with Tyson in the quote you are using, the problem for you is that you have demonstrated you dont actually know enough about many of the topics you post on to even legitimately have a claim to the former, let alone the latter.

The people he is talking about in the former are well educated people, competent in their field. Not people that demonstrate mistakes or lack of comprehension wrt basic concepts in a given field.