Evangelicals full of fear

[oxmixmudd]

Fea is not the focus of the post, but rather his comments. AFAICT, Charles was looking for discussion of Fea's observations and offering the authors self-identification as an evangelical in an attempt to get past the artificial barrier in the majority of the conservative Christians that frequent this online community that rejects any and all opinions or points made about Christendom if they are not themselves bona-fide Christians by the rather restrictive criteria held here AND bona-fide Republicans/Conservatives holding to the conservative agenda as recently defined by the Trump centered republican party.

Instead the entire thread became focused on who the author of the opinion was and if he actually met the 'bona-fides' I mention above - whether or not his opinion had the proper 'authority' associated with it*. IOW, most were unwilling to discuss the ideas expressed themselves and instead focused on the man offering the opinion, with a focus on discrediting him as not having the proper authority within certain circles to be worthy of voicing any opinion at all regarding Christian faith.

Which says a whole heck of a lot about just how petty the 'Evangelical' Christian community - as a whole - is on this site.

* and an opportunity for these oh so righteous individuals to mock, cajole, and otherwise denigrate Charles for even daring to ask for such a discussion.

[David Hayward]

and otherwise denigrate Charles for even daring to ask for such a discussion.

To point out the obvious: Charles didn't ask for a discussion of Fea's observations and thoughts.

...in an attempt to get past the artificial barrier in the majority of the conservative Christians that frequent this online community that rejects any and all opinions or points made about Christendom if they are not themselves bona-fide Christians by the rather restrictive criteria held here AND bona-fide Republicans/Conservatives holding to the conservative agenda as recently defined by the Trump centered republican party.

[Mountain Man]

You should understand that when Charles says that "nobody has addressed the opening post", what he means is that he didn't get the answer he wanted. I'm a bit surprised he hasn't started banning people from the thread who refuse to play his little game.

[Cow Poke]

You should understand that when Charles says that "nobody has addressed the opening post", what he means is that he didn't get the answer he wanted. I'm a bit surprised he hasn't started banning people from the thread who refuse to play his little game.

Wait, CHARLES is in this thread?

(It's interesting how he makes the crybaby appeal for nobody to post anything 'attacking his person', when he regularly does just that)

[oxmixmudd]

To point out the obvious: Charles didn't ask for a discussion of Fea's observations and thoughts.

Speaking of the obvious, what other reason would there be for saying that person x has some interesting observations and then posting those same observations?

Further, there is a context in this forum of discussions about the moral compromises associated with supporting Trump vigorously as is often seen here

So your point is mostly pedantic. Charles did not need to explicitly ask the question for it to be understood that was his point in posting the quote.


There is literally nothing in Charles approach or the content of the op that is hostile or should otherwise be offensive. Most of the responses to it, including your own, are ridiculously hostile relative to the content of Fea's comments or how charles introduced it.

They, and you most likely, understood what sort of discussion Charles was looking for and each of them, and you, has found a way to avoid such a discussion and cast aspersions on him. "How DARE he post such an opinion here!" would sum up the spirit behind most of the responses, followed by somewhat long winded expressions of their disgust and disdain for him as a person.

Really top notch Christian stuff, I must say!

[lilpixieofterror]

Speaking of the obvious, what other reason would there be for saying that person x has some interesting observations and then posting those same observations?

Further, there is a context in this forum of discussions about the moral compromises associated with supporting Trump vigorously as is often seen here

So your point is mostly pedantic. Charles did not need to explicitly ask the question for it to be understood that was his point in posting the quote.




There is literally nothing in Charles approach or the content of the op that is hostile or should otherwise be offensive. Most of the responses to it, including your own, are ridiculously hostile relative to the content of Fea's comments or how charles introduced it.

They, and you most likely, understood what sort of discussion Charles was looking for and each of them, and you, has found a way to avoid such a discussion and cast aspersions on him. "How DARE he post such an opinion here!" would sum up the spirit behind most of the responses, followed by somewhat long winded expressions of their disgust and disdain for him as a person.

Really top notch Christian stuff, I must say!

Do you ever get tired of playing the victim card?

[Mountain Man]

Speaking of the obvious, what other reason would there be for saying that person x has some interesting observations and then posting those same observations?

Further, there is a context in this forum of discussions about the moral compromises associated with supporting Trump vigorously as is often seen here

So your point is mostly pedantic. Charles did not need to explicitly ask the question for it to be understood that was his point in posting the quote.




There is literally nothing in Charles approach or the content of the op that is hostile or should otherwise be offensive. Most of the responses to it, including your own, are ridiculously hostile relative to the content of Fea's comments or how charles introduced it.

They, and you most likely, understood what sort of discussion Charles was looking for and each of them, and you, has found a way to avoid such a discussion and cast aspersions on him. "How DARE he post such an opinion here!" would sum up the spirit behind most of the responses, followed by somewhat long winded expressions of their disgust and disdain for him as a person.

Really top notch Christian stuff, I must say!

Here we go again...

Isn't it wonderful how Chuck drives up in a bus, and ox does everything he can to shove his fellow Christians underneath?

Such synergy between a believer and non-believer warms the heart.

[Cow Poke]

Does anybody really think that Charles is being supportive of Christians by starting this thread, or even trying to be "helpful" in showing Christians anything they need to know?

He finds a guy - Fea - who seems to regularly find fault with Christians (and Evangelicals in particular) and Charles claims that Fea is, himself, an Evangelical. Even if we accepted the "small e" evangelical notion, it's still questionable.

Then you get some buckethead jumping to the asinine conclusion that merely asking the question - "is Fea a (capaital-E) Evangelical" - is akin to attacking his Christianity, and asserting that merely asking that question is declaring that Fea isn't a "real Christian". Absolutely Donkey Plop!

His (Fea's) premise is obviously that Evangelicals are "full of fear" and "So supportive of Trump", like it's not possible to be supportive of Trump WITHOUT being "full of fear".

So, naturally anybody who hates Trump will jump right on board and kiss this guy's butt. Fea pretty much attacks the notion that America was founded by Christians, or had any special blessing from God --- that's CERTAINLY not the viewpoint of any Evangelical. It is the popular rallying cry of the liberals and the atheists that "America was founded as a SECULAR nation", and any attempt to see the blessings of God on this nation are wrong.

As I looked for evidence that Fea was, or was not, an Evangelical, I found he was all over the map. Quite simply, it depends on what audience he is addressing.

Fea is pretty much launching a "hate Trump" tirade, and it's no surprise why he gets a free pass at claiming Evangelicals are "full of fear".

[Charles]

The very loaded language, the lack of sources and quotes to support the statements made about me or Fea is noted.

Seems we are stuck in the idead that if anyone says something, we don't like, there must be something seriously wrong with them. And, it also seems, that a quote cannot be adressed for what it says in itself. It is (for some unknown reason) hugely important to know what the person said in other contexts to come up with certain claims about the person, and not what he said in the given context.

If this is the line of reasoning genreally applied, it is no wonder why self criticism and serious reflection will be lacking in quite many cases.

So much noise for a simple statement that goes:

"What's striking here is that evangelicals have in almost every circumstance where there's some kind of change in the culture, have not responded with hospitality to the stranger, with grace, with hope, with the idea that people who are different from them have been created in the image of God and have that dignity and worth. Instead they have built their walls and protected themselves against people they fear Fear. [It's] an inherent contradiction for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. That's what I'm trying to call people to think about in this book. Why are we so afraid? We love to claim a big God who controls everything and will work out his purposes for good as it says in Romans. Their politics is driven by fear much more than any kind hope."

I cannot help but think he is right both in his interpretation of the Bible and the type of reactions he describes above. I would even say that the responses in this very thread to a very large degree, ironically, seem to support the idea that fear is an important factor in what is going on.

[Cow Poke]

The very loaded language, the lack of sources and quotes to support the statements made about me or Fea is noted.

Wow, that much twisting could start a tornado!

Happy Easter.

[Mountain Man]

I wonder if Fea (or Chuck as his proxy in this thread) can support such a broad brush accusation like "evangelicals have in almost every circumstance where there's some kind of change in the culture, have not responded with hospitality to the stranger, with grace, with hope, with the idea that people who are different from them have been created in the image of God and have that dignity and worth. Instead they have built their walls and protected themselves against people they fear"?

What "changes in culture" is he referring to, exactly, and why does he think Christians are obligated to accept them?

[David Hayward]

Speaking of the obvious, what other reason would there be for saying that person x has some interesting observations and then posting those same observations?

Further, there is a context in this forum of discussions about the moral compromises associated with supporting Trump vigorously as is often seen here

So your point is mostly pedantic. Charles did not need to explicitly ask the question for it to be understood that was his point in posting the quote.

There is literally nothing in Charles approach or the content of the op that is hostile or should otherwise be offensive.

I quite disagree. I am astonished you hold that opinion. It's precisely what isn't in the content of the OP that makes it innuendo.

Most of the responses to it, including your own, are ridiculously hostile relative to the content of Fea's comments or how charles introduced it.

They, and you most likely, understood what sort of discussion Charles was looking for and each of them, and you, has found a way to avoid such a discussion and cast aspersions on him. "How DARE he post such an opinion here!" would sum up the spirit behind most of the responses, followed by somewhat long winded expressions of their disgust and disdain for him as a person.

Really top notch Christian stuff, I must say!

That functions as a somewhat long winded expression of your disgust and disdain for me as a person and for most of the thread's responders as persons. Really top notch Christian stuff, I must say!

[Watermelon]

I wonder if Fea (or Chuck as his proxy in this thread) can support such a broad brush accusation like "evangelicals have in almost every circumstance where there's some kind of change in the culture, have not responded with hospitality to the stranger, with grace, with hope, with the idea that people who are different from them have been created in the image of God and have that dignity and worth. Instead they have built their walls and protected themselves against people they fear"?

What "changes in culture" is he referring to, exactly, and why does he think Christians are obligated to accept them?

[Mountain Man]

All of them?

[lilpixieofterror]

All of them?