Delta variant and all future global variant surges (all are free post)

[oxmixmudd]

You've always broadly used "Christian evangelism" in your denunciations. I've never ever seen you use the term "American Evangelicals," so you're just moving the goalposts, probably because you realize your error in your judgement against the former.

No - I use the term Evangelicals to describe a particular subgroup of Christians. Now I am talking more specifically about American Evangelicals. If I use the term Evangelism in that context, it is not talking about the act of Evangelism, but rather the movement or subgroup of that name.

Example using both meanings in the same paragraph (wikipedia):

In the United States, evangelicalism is a movement among Protestant Christians who believe in the necessity of being born again, emphasize the importance of evangelism, and affirm traditional Protestant teachings on the authority as well as the historicity of the Bible.^[1]

All this stuff is just things you've rehashed over and over and over in thread after thread; immigration, homosexuality, climate change, just over and over ad nauseam. Our government is secular, not a church, and can't have open borders without a legal process enforced because it's just not economically feasible, nor is it fair (in fact outright evil) to make promises to folks you can't (and know you can't) keep for political points. Climate change policy is not economy feasible either (the populace will rebel against the required abrupt changes) and we had this tedious discussion in great detail just a few weeks ago. The western church is ridiculously lenient to homosexuality... RIDICULOUSLY... relative to scripture and comparable to other religions that actually give it a death sentence (yes there our rare culturally and politically inconsequential outliers like Westboro Baptist that most Christians condemn). Most western Christians either outright affirm it or are neutral about it. The resistance comes from it being forced down our throats in our culture, media, and schools and forced upon our children.

Unfortunately you are not even close to correct. Not having open borders and enforcing the laws is very different from cultivating hatred of immigrants. Christian Evangelicals that supported certain politics associated themselves with that hatred by supporting those encouraging it rather than speaking out against that same hatred. The climate change denial pseudo-science is funded by Big Oil, Big Oil that already knew about what CO2 was going to do to the climate in some cases before most climate scientists or at the same time. Christian Evangelicals, because of their anti-science bias (which comes mostly from their aversion to Old Earth and evolution) glommed onto that as well and buying the Big Oil pseudo science you yourself quote here. Your own words 'ridiculously lenient to homosexuality' in the context of the slaughter or Matthew Shepard makes my point without any further comment. And most evangelicals do NOT outright affirm it or are neutral about it - just read the posts here. They are pretty representative. There is great hostility to same sex marriage. homosexuals, and especially trans people.

So your animosity towards "American Evangelicals" for these things is simply unjustified, and so I can only see it as your hatred towards Christians. I see in all your past posts about Christianity, and I'll undoubtedly see it in your future posts about Christianity.

All the things I mentioned are areas where American Evangelicals tend to align themselves with hateful or destructive attitudes. There are in fact also many good things about American Evangelicals. I grew up an Evangelical and I have great respect for many of the good things they do. Unfortunately, on this website, and in this forum, the things that are emphasized as being 'true Christian positions' on these issues focus intently on the most hateful elements.

[oxmixmudd]

...

Also, I often don't understand when I've said something others will find to be inflammatory. Having lived a rather sheltered life on top of having autism can really hamper interpersonal communications. Figuring out when I'm at fault, or if another person is acting in bad faith particularly difficult. I have tried to err on the side of being charitable, but that has led to a lot of problems. Including being told by a neuropsychologist that I'm "too nice" and that I need to work on my assertiveness.

I'm going to address this one directly and independently of the rest of your post. Perhaps you might then understand that I had a farily serious cycling accident and head injury about 10 years ago and when I am under high levels of stress or feel particularly piled up on, I find it somewhat difficult to remain rational in my response. This is a direct consequence of that injury, and I work daily to try to keep things in line. But some people here, even though I have asked them not to purposefully provoke me with what they know will push me over the edge, continue to do so without mercy. They seem to think it is funny in fact to do so. So I tell you what, I will do my very best to tolerate what your autism might deprive you of in terms or a 'normal' recognition of what is socially acceptable if you will try to take into account the limitation my head injury brings to my capacity to 'keep my cool' and not purposefully try to provoke me to anger - sound fair?

[seanD]

No - I use the term Evangelicals to describe a particular subgroup of Christians. Now I am talking more specifically about American Evangelicals. If I use the term Evangelism in that context, it is not talking about the act of Evangelism, but rather the movement or subgroup of that name.

Example using both meanings in the same paragraph (wikipedia):

In the United States, evangelicalism is a movement among Protestant Christians who believe in the necessity of being born again, emphasize the importance of evangelism, and affirm traditional Protestant teachings on the authority as well as the historicity of the Bible.^[1]





Unfortunately you are not even close to correct. Not having open borders and enforcing the laws is very different from cultivating hatred of immigrants. Christian Evangelicals that supported certain politics associated themselves with that hatred by supporting those encouraging it rather than speaking out against that same hatred. The climate change denial pseudo-science is funded by Big Oil, Big Oil that already knew about what CO2 was going to do to the climate in some cases before most climate scientists or at the same time. Christian Evangelicals, because of their anti-science bias (which comes mostly from their aversion to Old Earth and evolution) glommed onto that as well and buying the Big Oil pseudo science you yourself quote here. Your own words 'ridiculously lenient to homosexuality' in the context of the slaughter or Matthew Shepard makes my point without any further comment. And most evangelicals do NOT outright affirm it or are neutral about it - just read the posts here. They are pretty representative. There is great hostility to same sex marriage. homosexuals, and especially trans people.



All the things I mentioned are areas where American Evangelicals tend to align themselves with hateful or destructive attitudes. There are in fact also many good things about American Evangelicals. I grew up an Evangelical and I have great respect for many of the good things they do. Unfortunately, on this website, and in this forum, the things that are emphasized as being 'true Christian positions' on these issues focus intently on the most hateful elements.

You're just wrong, period. Yes, there are undoubtedly some folks that just hate immigrants in general, but most Christians I've heard discussions support legal immigration; it's illegal immigration they're against and the crisis happening at the border has only underscored their concerns. You're just toting the typical leftist canard about illegal immigration. They simply call anyone on the right who's against illegal immigration or concerned about the border and that supports sound policy (which is a perfectly rational position by nonrelgious secular government) as "hatred" towards immigrants, and thus doing this, there's no way to have a rational discussion about it. It's like how leftists equate the political right in general as white supremacists. It's just more woke garbage that you're parroting and means nothing.

As I said, western Christians are RIDICULOUSLY lenient towards homosexuality, evident by the fact it's becoming so pervasive in our western culture and institutions and why Christians are always on the defensive about it. For you to believe it's not becoming pervasive and being forced upon us would be delusional, and something so obvious I wouldn't expect a Christian to miss, unless he's just immersed in wokeness as you obviously are. In comparison to other religions, Christians are practically passivists in comparison. In fact, even here in the west, the Nation of Islam, for example, is far more hostile in its rhetoric against LGBTQ.

And this type of wokeness you're immersed in is doing far more destruction to western society and rational thought than you believe eschatology is doing. The only thing unsound eschatology can do damage to is the church. The outside world could care less.

[MaxVel]

I'm going to address this one directly and independently of the rest of your post. Perhaps you might then understand that I had a farily serious cycling accident and head injury about 10 years ago and when I am under high levels of stress or feel particularly piled up on, I find it somewhat difficult to remain rational in my response. This is a direct consequence of that injury, and I work daily to try to keep things in line. But some people here, even though I have asked them not to purposefully provoke me with what they know will push me over the edge, continue to do so without mercy. They seem to think it is funny in fact to do so. So I tell you what, I will do my very best to tolerate what your autism might deprive you of in terms or a 'normal' recognition of what is socially acceptable if you will try to take into account the limitation my head injury brings to my capacity to 'keep my cool' and not purposefully try to provoke me to anger - sound fair?

I sincerely hope your health continues to improve. Given what you say, perhaps a political discussion board is not the healthiest environment for you?

It's inevitable that people are going to say things that others disagree (strongly, sometimes) with, and thus inevitable that posts are going to attract pushback of varying kinds, some of which may be too uh, direct (struggling for the right words here) for your good health. You will inevitably, and not unreasonably, say (strong) things in response to posts you disagree with (and you have done, in the past, and still do so) and people will naturally and fairly enough, respond in kind. If that makes you stressed to the point that you can't maintain your equanimity then perhaps you should seriously reconsider the benefits of posting in the Civics section.

What you have shared above brings me no joy or pleasure at your situation, but it does make quite a lot of your behaviour make sense.

[oxmixmudd]

I sincerely hope your health continues to improve. Given what you say, perhaps a political discussion board is not the healthiest environment for you?

It's inevitable that people are going to say things that others disagree (strongly, sometimes) with, and thus inevitable that posts are going to attract pushback of varying kinds, some of which may be too uh, direct (struggling for the right words here) for your good health. You will inevitably, and not unreasonably, say (strong) things in response to posts you disagree with (and you have done, in the past, and still do so) and people will naturally and fairly enough, respond in kind. If that makes you stressed to the point that you can't maintain your equanimity then perhaps you should seriously reconsider the benefits of posting in the Civics section.

What you have shared above brings me no joy or pleasure at your situation, but it does make quite a lot of your behaviour make sense.

Thanks for that response Max. I ask myself why I stay rather often. But to me, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that in a debate with Christians one should have to worry about or deal with deeply personal attacks rather than just pushbacks against the particular point of view. And while I know I have done that, I strive not to, and I know I have this 'thing' that hinders my ability to stay true to my own convictions in that area. But I have on multiple occasions apologised to the people I have done that to. Yet, many times the Christians here will not forgive, they hold the grudge over that offense for years, and it becomes a weapon they use against me over and over again. In fact, in a few cases Chrstiains here use the fact I have apologized more than a few times for the same offense as a weapon against me in deeply personal attacks, claiming the fact I stumble into the same offense more than once is proof I'm not a true Christian.

I just don't think that is how a Christian debate site should be, and I keep coming back both because I am concerned about the various political ideas that are being supported by Christians and because I fundamentally feel it is my responsibilty to campaign for change in that fundamental nature of this website. There is an opportunity here that is being squandered to show the world that Christians are different from the world. That a person can come here and be disagreed with and know that the Christians here will never use deeply personal and hurtful language to shut them down. That the Christians here will not consider winning the debate at all costs the goal, but rather the expression of the love and grace of Christ to the person they are debating, even in the most heated debates, the goal.

And even though I am probably the least capable of any Christian here of realizing that goal, I keep coming back and trying the help shape it in that direction.

[Mountain Man]

I would say that distrust comes more from the way you view people that disagree with you ('liberals') and the years long hostility you have cultivated with me, rather than with anything I've actually said or done that would make you think I would lie about these things.

For example - when I've made a clear mistake, I am one of the few people here that will own up to it. It happened just recently. You said you respected it.

Why then would you think I'd lie about something as inconsequential as this?

The distrust comes from the fact that in this very thread, you said one thing and then later implausibly claimed you really meant the exact opposite: you went from claiming ignorance about the WEF and dismissing the whole thing as a mere conspiracy to claiming that you actually did know about the WEF and was only dismissing certain beliefs about them as a conspiracy theory. It is impossible for both of these contentions to be true. Personally, I think you were embarrassed by your original confession of ignorance, and your follow-up contradiction was an attempt to save face.

[Cow Poke]

Jesus said no man knows the day or hour, and I've not seen anyone on this forum (at least currently) make any such speculation about specific dates.

You obviously have not read my new book "24 Reasons Why Jesus will Return on 2024*"

But Jesus did command us to know "when he's at the door" and to know the seasons, which I personally believe meant knowing the generation.

But I would refer you to this discussion about it that was held in the proper forum section though.

Bottom line -- stay ready, and occupy til He comes!




*back in the 90's, there was a guy writing such drivel -- can't remember the dates, but it was along that format... "98 reasons why Jesus will return in 1998". Then, the following year, "99 reasons.....".

[Cow Poke]

....

Also, I often don't understand when I've said something others will find to be inflammatory. Having lived a rather sheltered life on top of having autism can really hamper interpersonal communications. Figuring out when I'm at fault, or if another person is acting in bad faith particularly difficult. I have tried to err on the side of being charitable, but that has led to a lot of problems. Including being told by a neuropsychologist that I'm "too nice" and that I need to work on my assertiveness.

The problem, my friend, is that you are speaking very uncomfortable truths, which, no matter how politely you speak them, will be a severe irritant to those that need to hear them.

I can totally understand why somebody would have a problem with me speaking such truths, as I can be rather blunt, but for somebody to see you as combative is downright absurd.

[oxmixmudd]

The distrust comes from the fact that in this very thread, you said one thing and then later implausibly claimed you really meant the exact opposite: you went from claiming ignorance about the WEF and dismissing the whole thing as a mere conspiracy to claiming that you actually did know about the WEF and was only dismissing certain beliefs about them as a conspiracy theory. It is impossible for both of these contentions to be true. Personally, I think you were embarrassed by your original confession of ignorance, and your follow-up contradiction was an attempt to save face.

I don't see the situation as plausibly being what you describe at all. I was both unaware of what the WEF was specifically while I also knew enough to know it was in fact a real organization and not some hypothetical construct derived from a conspiracy theory. What I was dismissing as a conspiracy theory was the idea that this organization was some sort of insidious arm intent on world domination, and I was dismissing that idea because a that kind of idea so often derives from - in Christian circles - the undercurrent of adherent to certain eschatological views. Now you could truthfully say my dismissal on those grounds was rash, but what isn't true is that any of my comments reflect any sort of deception, lie, or attempt to 'save face'.

[Cow Poke]

I don't see the situation as plausibly being what you describe at all. I was both unaware of what the WEF was specifically while I also knew enough to know it was in fact a real organization and not some hypothetical construct derived from a conspiracy theory. What I was dismissing as a conspiracy theory was the idea that this organization was some sort of insidious arm intent on world domination, and I was dismissing that idea because a that kind of idea so often derives from - in Christian circles - the undercurrent of adherent to certain eschatological views. Now you could truthfully say my dismissal on those grounds was rash, but what isn't true is that any of my comments reflect any sort of deception, lie, or attempt to 'save face'.

The WEF is very much a part of the "spiritual wickedness in high places" Paul warned about.

Scripture Verse: Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cerebrum123]

I'm going to address this one directly and independently of the rest of your post. Perhaps you might then understand that I had a farily serious cycling accident and head injury about 10 years ago and when I am under high levels of stress or feel particularly piled up on, I find it somewhat difficult to remain rational in my response. This is a direct consequence of that injury, and I work daily to try to keep things in line. But some people here, even though I have asked them not to purposefully provoke me with what they know will push me over the edge, continue to do so without mercy. They seem to think it is funny in fact to do so. So I tell you what, I will do my very best to tolerate what your autism might deprive you of in terms or a 'normal' recognition of what is socially acceptable if you will try to take into account the limitation my head injury brings to my capacity to 'keep my cool' and not purposefully try to provoke me to anger - sound fair?

Yes that sounds fair.

[oxmixmudd]

The WEF is very much a part of the "spiritual wickedness in high places" Paul warned about.

Scripture Verse: Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

© Copyright Original Source

It is very possible they could be a consequence of that reality. As are oppressive autocracies, ministers who use their position of trust to abuse children, husbands who abuse their wives, and so on. What I would caution against however is on focusing on the potential evil of something like the WEF while excusing things that are just as evil and of far more immediate danger in our own national, state, and local governments, churches, and/or households. Again, I have never seen any good come from a focus on this sort of thing.

[Mountain Man]

I don't see the situation as plausibly being what you describe at all. I was both unaware of what the WEF was specifically while I also knew enough to know it was in fact a real organization and not some hypothetical construct derived from a conspiracy theory. What I was dismissing as a conspiracy theory was the idea that this organization was some sort of insidious arm intent on world domination, and I was dismissing that idea because a that kind of idea so often derives from - in Christian circles - the undercurrent of adherent to certain eschatological views. Now you could truthfully say my dismissal on those grounds was rash, but what isn't true is that any of my comments reflect any sort of deception, lie, or attempt to 'save face'.

Then: "I'm just learning there is a WEF..."

Now: "I was both unaware of what the WEF was specifically while I also knew enough to know it was in fact a real organization and not some hypothetical construct derived from a conspiracy theory."

It is impossible for both of these statements to be true.

[Cow Poke]

It is very possible they could be a consequence of that reality.

It is incredibly likely. Walks like it, talks like it...

As are oppressive autocracies, ministers who use their position of trust to abuse children, husbands who abuse their wives, and so on.

No, nobody gets up in the morning and PLANS to do bad stuff like that. The WEF is very organized and purposeful in their objectives.

What I would caution against however is on focusing on the potential evil of something like the WEF

I'll trust Paul's cautions over yours.

while excusing things that are just as evil and of far more immediate danger in our own national, state, and local governments, churches, and/or households.

Nobody here is doing any such thing. It's always interesting how you try to dismiss something by totally making up something else.

Again, I have never seen any good come from a focus on this sort of thing.

I don't believe you have the slightest clue about spiritual warfare.

[Cow Poke]

Then: "I'm just learning there is a WEF..."

Now: "I was both unaware of what the WEF was specifically while I also knew enough to know it was in fact a real organization and not some hypothetical construct derived from a conspiracy theory."

It is impossible for both of these statements to be true.

Doesn't mean he's lying.