Christian Evangelism isn't a Political Party

[RumTumTugger]

Killin' animals?

Starlight was upset when he heard about some folks had a whale hunt and called it immoral. This after he said he thought it would be ok to kill a 3 month old baby.

[Meh Gerbil]

Starlight was upset when he heard about some folks had a whale hunt and called it immoral. This after he said he thought it would be ok to kill a 3 month old baby.

How does he feel about killing baby whales?
Asking for a friend.

[Carrikature]

Do we expect people who are atheist to hold to Christian morals?

Christians regularly paint atheists as the worst sorts of people - with absolutely no foundation for any type of moral code - and yet the moment an atheist is honest enough to actually express a real opinion on something we get people running around with their hair on fire - for expressing the exact kind of view the stereotype holds that he would posses.

I think everyone needs to take a breather.
This is getting embarrassing.

Almost. I think Starlight omitted the eating part, which is what caused all the fuss.

Starlight, be sure to add "eating babies is ok" to your stance.

[Adrift]

As for your laundry list of ethical issues, I'm OK with some of them all of the time, I'm against others all of the time, and the rest depend on circumstances.

And going back to my OP, that's what's wrong with assuming Evangelical Christianity is a political party. As we've reminded Starlight several times now, I and a few others here would consider ourselves Evangelical, but are absolutely against torture, drone strikes, war, the death penalty, homelessness, shooting unarmed black people, and are for human rights for gay/trans people, healthcare for those that can't afford it, and providing food and education for the same. Most of the more conservative posters who consider themselves Evangelical would definitely be on board about the plight of the homeless, against the shooting of unarmed people regardless of their color, human rights for all, and providing food and education where there's a need. And as has been previously stated, even on those things where we might disagree, say on the death penalty, or war, or the use of torture, even the most conservative Evangelical does not desire these things if they can be helped.

Starlight likes to pat his own back as though he's that much more noble than everyone else here, especially Christians, but most Christians are for or against the very same things he claims to be for or against. We may quibble about what it means to be for human rights to gay/trans people, just as he would quibble about what he means by being against war (unlike most pacifists I know, he is for it under certain circumstances). And I know plenty of "Evangelical Christians" who are long time vegetarians (though not all of them do it for animal welfare as much as they do it for health reasons). He himself has only just recently became a vegetarian, so it's a dumb thing to put on his uppity moral grandstanding list. And of course, he's for plenty of things that would make even other far left leaning types look at him like he's a monster.

Anyhow, yeah, while our Christian or Atheist worldviews might shape how we approach things like politics, I'm still with Craig in thinking that Evangelical Christianity is not a political party. And if it's a matter of new uses for old words, then just call me Christian. Course, sooner or later that word will likely be warped by society as well (if it hasn't been already).

[rogue06]

The really fat liars are the worst!

Skinny ones can be nearly as bad, but not quite.

[Tassman]

The really fat liars are the worst!

Why?

[guacamole]

Why?

People in a coma also have no awareness of their own state, emotions, or motivations. Shoot, people in a deep sleep have no awareness of their own state, emotions, or motivations. Temporary suspension of awareness--as in the case of the comatose, the deeply asleep, and yes, infants--is unreasonable grounds for the revocation of human rights.

[guacamole]

And going back to my OP, that's what's wrong with assuming Evangelical Christianity is a political party. As we've reminded Starlight several times now, I and a few others here would consider ourselves Evangelical, but are absolutely against torture, drone strikes, war, the death penalty, homelessness, shooting unarmed black people, and are for human rights for gay/trans people, healthcare for those that can't afford it, and providing food and education for the same. Most of the more conservative posters who consider themselves Evangelical would definitely be on board about the plight of the homeless, against the shooting of unarmed people regardless of their color, human rights for all, and providing food and education where there's a need. And as has been previously stated, even on those things where we might disagree, say on the death penalty, or war, or the use of torture, even the most conservative Evangelical does not desire these things if they can be helped.

Starlight likes to pat his own back as though he's that much more noble than everyone else here, especially Christians, but most Christians are for or against the very same things he claims to be for or against. We may quibble about what it means to be for human rights to gay/trans people, just as he would quibble about what he means by being against war (unlike most pacifists I know, he is for it under certain circumstances). And I know plenty of "Evangelical Christians" who are long time vegetarians (though not all of them do it for animal welfare as much as they do it for health reasons). He himself has only just recently became a vegetarian, so it's a dumb thing to put on his uppity moral grandstanding list. And of course, he's for plenty of things that would make even other far left leaning types look at him like he's a monster.

Anyhow, yeah, while our Christian or Atheist worldviews might shape how we approach things like politics, I'm still with Craig in thinking that Evangelical Christianity is not a political party. And if it's a matter of new uses for old words, then just call me Christian. Course, sooner or later that word will likely be warped by society as well (if it hasn't been already).

I am absolutely sympathetic to what you have to say. That said, I don't believe you (or I, for that matter) swim in the mainstream of Evangelical thought. There are too few evangelicals who are, imo, consistently pro-life, which is what my earlier comment to you was about--that one would be supposedly pro-life, but also pro-drone strike, pro-police impunity, etc. There are Christians who are absolutely okay with killing some infants in some circumstances so long as it serves some patriotic greater good. There are Christians who pay lip service to Christian ethics, but who believe nevertheless that the ends justify the means. So while I appreciate the outrage that many feel towards Starlight's odious ethic, I find it frustrating that the outrage stops at political borders, and that so many shrug when it comes to other human suffering, or even applaud.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Darth Executor]

You aren't more "consistently pro life" than I am, you oppose wars because you feel no loyalty to the people around you. A dead stranger is no different from a dead friend. Imagine if God treated us the same way.

This is my biggest issue with pacifism and its most fatal flaw: 99.99% of the time it adds up to just plain old treason. The pacifist's ways don't produce more peace (often, they produce less), they simply kneecap those dumb enough to allow pacifists among their ranks so that when conflict inevitably arises, they are the ones who die.

[Starlight]

People in a coma also have no awareness of their own state, emotions, or motivations. Shoot, people in a deep sleep have no awareness of their own state, emotions, or motivations. Temporary suspension of awareness--as in the case of the comatose, the deeply asleep, and yes, infants--is unreasonable grounds for the revocation of human rights.

A temporary suspension of qualities a being has possessed in the past and which they will repossess in the future seems quite different to an instance of something that has never possessed those qualities but which might in the future.

Your final sentence seems to be an outright falsehood: "Temporary suspension of awareness--as in the case... [for] infants". No, it is not the case for infants. They've never had awareness. It has not been "temporarily suspended" (unless you're endorsing some sort of pre-existence or reincarnation?).

[NorrinRadd]

It is tragic to see that so many are either so stupid or so willfully ignorant as to fail to understand that "Pro-Life" means "Against targeted killing of the most innocent and defenseless." It's a convenient shorthand, you frickin' morons!

[Adrift]

Why?

Ok, so mark you down as pro-infanticide too. Got it.

Unbelievable what this world is coming to.

[Starlight]

It is tragic to see that so many are either so stupid or so willfully ignorant as to fail to understand that "Pro-Life" means "Against targeted killing of the most innocent and defenseless."

Does that include being against civilians or first responders being killed by flying robots in middle eastern countries? Serious question, because it doesn't appear to. During the Obama administration, internal analyses found that 90% of the people they were killing with drone strikes were not the intended targets. Trump has quadrupled Obama's rate of drone strikes. I find that "pro-life" Americans are by and large supportive of the "War on Terror" (which I view to itself be terrorism in the sense that it terrorizes people in the middle east)

[guacamole]

Darth,

Generally, my comment to Adrift doesn't apply to you because, unless I am missing something, you are not an evangelical. I was noting that neither he nor I would probably be considered in the main stream of evangelical political thought, despite both of us presumably identifying as some sort of evangelical Christian. But I am interested in discussion, and you are intelligent and interesting to talk to.

You aren't more "consistently pro life" than I am, you oppose wars because you feel no loyalty to the people around you. A dead stranger is no different from a dead friend. Imagine if God treated us the same way.

First off, let me clarify--I make no claim to be more "consistently pro-life" than anyone else here. We are all a mixture of idealism and expediency. Humility demands that I recognize that everyone is trying to walk with God and that he is working to heal us and make us complete in his image. I see ways that I think people are wrong. They no doubt think that they see ways that I am wrong. I am open to critique that is thoughtful and rooted in evidence, including yours.

You are wrong that I feel no loyalty to the people around me. I love the people around me and do not want to see them hurt. I also recognize that every person in the world, unless they are literally mentally or spiritually broken, feels the same way. I also know that while God loves me and mine, he loves me and mine no more than he loves anyone else in this world. So I try, as much as I am able, to see a person loved and pursued by God when I look at other people. I'm not always successful at it.

I struggle to fulfill Jesus' teaching in Luke 6:

I think Christ wants us to see that person, minted with the divine image, when we see other people--that's why he explains to us that if we are only righteous to those to who, there is no virtue. Indeed, we are children of the Most High if we love the unlovable because that is precisely what God did for us.

This is my biggest issue with pacifism and its most fatal flaw: 99.99% of the time it adds up to just plain old treason. The pacifist's ways don't produce more peace (often, they produce less), they simply kneecap those dumb enough to allow pacifists among their ranks so that when conflict inevitably arises, they are the ones who die.

I am no pacifist either. I fully reckon there are times that we must use violence to do good. We are wicked if we have the power to stop evil but do nothing about it. That said, I don't see those times as being nearly as common as most evangelicals seem to think they are.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Adrift]

I am absolutely sympathetic to what you have to say. That said, I don't believe you (or I, for that matter) swim in the mainstream of Evangelical thought.

I disagree. An Evangelical to me is, and always will the Christian who accepts those earmarks mentioned by Craig in the OP.

There are too few evangelicals who are, imo, consistently pro-life, which is what my earlier comment to you was about--that one would be supposedly pro-life, but also pro-drone strike, pro-police impunity, etc. There are Christians who are absolutely okay with killing some infants in some circumstances so long as it serves some patriotic greater good. There are Christians who pay lip service to Christian ethics, but who believe nevertheless that the ends justify the means. So while I appreciate the outrage that many feel towards Starlight's odious ethic, I find it frustrating that the outrage stops at political borders, and that so many shrug when it comes to other human suffering, or even applaud.

Bull. Christians who take a different stance on issues like the necessity for war, or torture, or what have you, do not shrug when it comes to human suffering, and they certainly don't applaud it (not counting the one or two wild exceptions you might find on an internet forum that attracts weirdos like this). How could you even conceive of such a thing? While I disagree with their stances on these issues, I know that their heart is that no one suffers. Far from seeing people harmed or killed, they believe that those things they are for will save lives, and bring healing, not destroy them. Now you and I may believe that their views are absolutely wrong, shortsighted, perhaps even lacking in faith, but let's dispense with this goofy idea that they don't care. That's complete nonsense. There's gotta be some Christian somewhere in your life, someone close to you, who holds conservative views, and you know that they really do care about people. Is there any such person in your life?