I think you are right on some things and wrong on others, or it is more complicated than you went in your post.
64% of Americans claim to be Christian per recent polling.
- Thread starter 82hoosier
- Start date
I don't have time to respond properly this morning, but wanted to say how much I appreciate your post.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the social role the Church has played in the past that is no longer an integral part of people's lives. John Mellencamp got his start playing "teen dances" in the basement of a Seymour church. That just isn't happening today.
Lol.... are you really that egotistical and sexist to think that everyone that had sex with you wanted to have children with you?
I couldn't even tell you the first names of some I've been with..... and damn sure don't feel guilty about it. News flash.... women like sex too. Even casual. At least they used to.
Seems people of younger generations have lost the capacity to fk around for fun. Sad. No wonder they are all depressed and some turning into mass shooters.
I will agree with you that there is no such thing as "perfect". There are probably 4 women that I could have married (that would have easily reciprocated).... but the timing wasn't right, or whatever. I'm quite sure that I'd of had a successful marriage with 3 of them... one would have likely ended in a murder/ suicide situation. Fortunately didn't pick that one
Last edited:
Evangelicals are an American- made embarrassment to Christianity. Very self-centered and self-absorbed. Full of hatred.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I get that there are superficial or dumb people who talk about things they don't know or understand.
But they don't know or understand the ideology because they are superficial or dumb, not because they don't buy into the belief system. America has a lot of superficial, dumb self-identified Christians who really don't understand Christianity.
As you've laid out Christian thought is not all one thing. It's varied and at times can be hard to reconcile with itself. It's one of the reasons Holland's thesis is tough to nail down, because you can basically tie most values back to something said in the Bible. But Holland does a nice job of pointing out that these very political fights we have in the West that you just outlined--how to help those less fortunate (welfare/social safety net), how far to push our own democratic, political values onto others (evangalizing democracy into Iraq), ensuring purity of thought within a movement and purging the non-believers (wokeness, RINOs, etc) are replays of historical trends in the Christian West, that were addressed under the banner of Christianity by people who truly thought the Bible and the religion pointed to the answers.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I like this post.
I'd just caution you not to fall into the millennial trap of thinking your generation is that much different than other generations. People have been pushing back against selective Christian outrage for a very, very long time. Nor is the secular movement for kindness a new thing and I'm not sure the young really practice that any better than the old, anyway.
What's your definition for evangelicals? I'm generally curious. I see it thrown around a lot and honestly have no clue what people mean.
Your take on acceptance of gays couldn't be more wrong. Every polling shows the opposite of what you think.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx
"Born-again" types. Just ask them, they'll tell you. Or don't, they will probably tell you as well.
That poll didn't reference religion at all, so I don't think it's really relevant.
FACT 1: The initial poll that started this thread showed that religiosity in the US is falling.
FACT 2: Your poll shows that over the same time period support for gay marriage in the US is rising.
HYPOTHESIS 1: The two may be inversely related.
QUESTION 1: How, if at all, have Evangelical white Protestant attitudes shifted over time? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
QUESTION 2: Which Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist leader, or their often supported political actors, have expressed support for LGB issues, ignoring TQ+ for now?
I will speculate that a poll of Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalists asking "Are gay people going to hell?" would be a resounding result in favor of "yes."
The list of things that would fall with it is large, but there is much more support for that position within the book then there is the opposite.
People are hypocrites, it is almost impossible not to be one in life. Everyone does something that runs afoul of the rules. Old testament, Romans, and Corinthians all have support for the idea that sexual immorality (if not repented from) will put you down the wrong path and homosexuality is considered a sexual immorality.
Evangelicals have an issue with delivering the message but there is no real way to soften that message. We are currently in a society where if you don't celebrate everything that I do, then you are judging me. And then you have people roll out the "judge not" verse as a support to basically do whatever they please (as long as it is a behavior that is currently accepted by the popular secular culture).
You can love your drug addict child who has strife follow them and still take the position that tough love is what is best for them. I can't loan you another $20 because you are going to shoot it right into your arm. Allowing you to do that isn't loving you, it is helping you destroy yourself....
Okay, so how accepting of gays do you think the Evangelical-fundamentalist community is? Because that was my original point that you said was way off base? Do you agree or disagree that, painting with broad brushes here, the EF community is less tolerant of homosexuality than they are of heterosexual impurity, or divorce, or any drunkenness? If you disagree, please provide evidence. If you agree, why do you think that distinction has been made?
Jeez, I feel like I'm writing a deposition outline here
I don't think they are accepting of the community generally speaking because in today's definitions they feel they can't be and realistically I think they are right. I also don't believe they are more tolerant of heterosexual impurity or drunkenness, at least not those that I am familiar with. And I grew up in a church where the head pastor would not do second weddings, the assistant had to.Okay, so how accepting of gays do you think the Evangelical-fundamentalist community is? Because that was my original point that you said was way off base? Do you agree or disagree that, painting with broad brushes here, the EF community is less tolerant of homosexuality than they are of heterosexual impurity, or divorce, or any drunkenness? If you disagree, please provide evidence. If you agree, why do you think that distinction has been made?
Jeez, I feel like I'm writing a deposition outline here
I think where you get the idea of more tolerance or lenience is in the idea of repentance and forgiveness. "I had sex outside of marriage when I was not walking the right path with God. I have realized the error of my ways and will no longer be an active participant in that behavior." People accept that we all have failed and move forward. Where that usually diverts on the homosexuality issue is that there is no remorse, no repentance, and no attempted avoidance of that behavior in the future because of a disagreement that the sin is even a sin to begin with.
ETA: And I didn't say you were off base, I said I think you have some things right and some things wrong...or the things I think you have wrong haven't been picked at enough (for me) to determine agreement.
I think it's for other reasons, but were not going to change each other's opinions.
LINK?
That's utter bullshit. Not entirely unexpected from you. You cannot cite one single word where I excused the horrific actions of that deranged Nashville shooter or implied that the shooter was driven to that horrible act by any influence of Christianity. An unwillingness to enact sensible restrictions on AR-15 ownership is not a "Christian" position, to my knowledge. I certainly criticized lax gun laws.
Simply put, YOU LIE. Consistently. Like the sun rising.
Oh, and you use apostrophes to pluralize nouns, like an idiot. "The message that Christian’s played..."
We Christians can't even get along. My brother very recently became a Methodist, he had been pretty agnostic. I am Methodist as well. Our sister, who is Evangelical, gives us the "I just hate that you two don't go to a proper church" line. An Evangelical friend on Facebook often posts that only Evangelical (and not all of them) is correct, only the King James Bible is correct. I think all of this damages the overall Christian brand with young people. It is one thing to explain why one's interpretation is correct, it is another to attack all others as heretics.
It's mathematically impossible for some of those people not be Christians. I do agree it's both. I assume a lot of the people are like myself. I don't give a sh#t if gay people get married (I voted for Obama).
This is where we part ways. You're getting into wanting Christians to validate or agree with liberal ideologies, rather than being accepting of them.
Have long felt when either economics or religion is mixed with politics they both come out losers.
It takes a rare person to describe the other party or religion in positive terms.
The notion of finding the best in another person's values which may differ from your own seems to be disappearing.
One thing I've noted about evangelicals is that they rely on themselves and other like minded to provide the help that some folks need. They're the first to provide funds and volunteer help when a tornado destroys a neighbor's home, for example. Others - non-evangelicals - say that they pay taxes, and that's enough . . . let government provide the help.
My personal opinion is that when government provides the help it distances the one providing the funds/help from the person receiving it. That may help shy people stay anonymous, but it doesn't help make a community.
I don't think that's what CO was talking about though . . . he's just a crank when it comes to anyone who doesn't think like he does. It's OK . . . he's really old. Probably has lots of aches and pains.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Which, in and of itself, might be viewed as a Christian sentiment. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that.
Most of the Islamic world for the last couple hundred years and many ancient, pre-Christian societies thought religion and state inextricably intertwined.
(I apologize if this is annoying. I've been reading this book and listening to Holland's podcast the Rest is History so much recently, I'm starting to annoy myself by drawing these comparisons in my head. But I do find it fascinating and humbling how far back you can trace some of these notions we think of as particularly American or particularly modern.)
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The older I get, the more I realize both how important and how underappreciated this is.
My wife is a devout Christian. She has stopped calling herself a Christian, though, since she is Catholic and the word "Christian" has been coopted by Evangelical Christians such that it conveys an allegiance to beliefs that she does not share at all, and never has.
I think there is some truth to this, I also think we are losing a sense of community for a whole host of reasons. That loss is a negative to us as a whole.
Bingo. Furthermore, there is no personal sacrifice involved in the whole taxes thing. You are merely rendering unto Caesar what everyone else has to. You are touching on the fundamental misunderstanding I mentioned above. I don't see support for welfare programs as charitable giving and we could get into several things that more personal charity has that are beneficial whereas the faceless "giving" (I think it is a stretch to call it that) has deleterious impacts.
I don't think "faceless giving" is deleterious. It is giving after all. It's just that it's antiseptic . . . the giver doesn't have to get their hands dirty. Seeing someone get their hands dirty is part of what gives rise to gratitude. It's more personal.
The gratitude is perhaps the piece I am thinking...I was also thinking maybe how pride/shame can play into it as well to some degree.
There is a difference in behavior adjustment between face to face charity and getting money dropped into an account twice a month as well. I think that maybe plays into the gratitude thing that you mentioned. It is humbling to have to face to face request help. I think there are positives that come out of that interaction on both sides.
I don't understand this argument. I don't know whether you're talking about adultery, premarital sex or something else.
There is strong biblical support (the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus) for the idea that a married person who has sex with someone who isn't his/her spouse is committing a sin by committing adultery. By logical extension, it's easy to argue that anyone - straight or gay - - in a committed relationship with another person who strays sexually from that relationship is wrong/sinful.
Are two young, unmarried heterosexual people who have sex committing a sin? Are two young, unmarried gay people who have sex committing a sin? You tell me. Repentance has nothing to do with whether the underlying conduct is sinful or not.
TMFT is spot-on about the evangelical view of homosexuality. We saw it for years with "conversion therapy." We see it here (one guy quotes the Old Testament in his signature and a passage that refers to homosexuality as "vile affections"). We see it among social media and political influencers. Gays are evil. Gays are groomers. Homosexuality is about as bad as it gets for many of these people.
Unfortunately many of those same people likely don't consider her, a Catholic, to be a real Christian. One of my kids has been on the receiving end of some of that.
I think in a vaccum you are correct. I think there is more to it though. Welfare programs guarantee everyone gets helps, not just those that fit a model or make a compelling story on GoFundMe.
I think all the other factors in loss of community come in to play as well. One of the biggest, people today move a lot. Sheriff Taylor wanted to give back to Mayberry because he lived their his entire life, his parents had, Opie probably would. Today a great many more than 1960 move every few years, there aren't the roots/community. There is more of a sense of ownership of the community.
It would be great if we all pitched in and Amish barn build after every disaster, or pitch in money for everyone in need. But our lives tend to be overcommitted as is. Polls show everyone feels busier than ever (there is evidence that isn't true but the feeling is the problem). Faceless help isn't the best, but often it is the only.
Hm. I think there are many reasons why the word “Christian” has been sullied in the last several decades. Certainly people like Falwell and Robinson played role, but they are by no means the only ones. Given the recent history of the Roman Catholics with sexual abuse and coverups, I’m surprised your wife singles out evangelicals as the reason she won’t publicly admit to being a Christian.
In my view, the attacks Christians have taken areound the world, and here at home, without serious consequences or even objections, is telling. Many here, either by intention or ignorance dump on Christians in ways we don’t see with Jews, Muslims or other faiths. The misrepresentation of the Hobby Lobby and Colorado bake shop cases are examples. We’ve had way too many school shootings, but we have never seen any hint that the shootings were in any way the fault of the victims until a Christian school was the site of mass murder because it was Christian. When I point out the attacks from non-Christian’s, I’m called a crank. Eh—DILLIGAS?
This thread has several posts about what is Christianity and what does it mean to be a Christian.. Absent from the discussion is the whole concept of joy. Christians (as well as religious people in general) tend to be more content, happy, and joyful. Study after study confirms this. In a world where depression, anxiety, suicides, and other mental health issues are on the rise, many tend to want to fix those with drugs, lashing out at others, and other self-centered self medications and treatments. Maybe there is a better way to feel better about yourself and the world.
Last edited:
I tried to explain it above but will do so again. Sex outside of marriage is sinful, period. You can do that and repent and be forgiven, but part of the repentance is to "go forth and sin no more." Saying, "forgive me" and then going out and committing the act over and over again isn't true repentance. Both are sins.
So where does the disconnect come? Conservative Christian churches can point to both the Old and New Testament (Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians) and find support for the idea that homosexuality (a man laying with a man) is a sin. They have a definition of marriage. Based on what they have in their books, you can't ever engage in gay sex and have it not be a sin. In order to repent from that sin you have to renounce that behavior and truly attempt to not engage in that sin anymore.
You miss the point of the pushback at the end. Those same people are not comfortable with people pushing sexuality on their children. The LGBTQ community is singularly focused on forcing the celebration of them onto everyone and kids in particular. Stripper story hour with women dressed up like cheap prostitutes to read to kids wouldn't be acceptable to those communities either.
I agree. The question is whether someone is too proud to accept the humility that goes along with accepting face to face charity. This is what separates the tribes, I think. IMHO, conservatives tend to want the recipient to feel inferior to their superiority. Liberals tend to want "dignity" to prevail.
Each has its benefits. I think back to Russell Crowe in Cinderella Man and he got humiliated into accepting public assistance by his having to ask for private charity . . . and ended up waiting in line to give all of the public assistance back. He lost and then regained his dignity . . . that's a story we love.
Possibly, I think where the problem exists is not on arguing the merits of that, it is trying to accuse someone of not following their religious tenets because they aren't 100% bought into the welfare state as someone was trying to do up above.
I don't consider paying taxes to be charity, Christian or otherwise.
Good grief. This is totally nuts. And you call me a crank?
I never said that my wife "doesn't admit to being a Christian"
She calls herself a Catholic, knowing full well that all Catholics are Christains.
If someone were to ask her if she were a Christain, she'd say "Yes, I am a Catholic" and would never say "Yes, I am a Christian" because the former is much more precise and the latter has some baggage to it.
She calls herself a Catholic, knowing full well that all Catholics are Christains.
If someone were to ask her if she were a Christain, she'd say "Yes, I am a Catholic" and would never say "Yes, I am a Christian" because the former is much more precise and the latter has some baggage to it.
Last edited:
My catch to this is that someone who has spent 70 years of "go forth and sin no more" must by default no longer be a sinner. They've certainly been through all the sins, and they aren't committing any a second time. So once one has not loved a neighbor as oneself, they aren't every going to do that again. But I think we all agree that isn't possible to be without sin. So how do we reconcile that?
