Evangelicals full of fear

[firstfloor]

This claim is a lie foisted by enemies of the Cross. Good to see you, ff.

The hazards of Holy Week:
You see?

I hope you are keeping safe from the virus.

[Charles]

As has been debated in this thread, "Evangelical" can be defined a number of ways, but when used with the capital E, it generally refers to somebody who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Those persons (like me) believe the Bible speaks against homosexuality.



That's pretty much what Fea is arguing - that Evangelicals get it wrong, because they're not 'flexible' enough. Abortion and homosexuality are two current "hot issues", and the liberal Christians seem (at least to some degree) to allow both, while Conservative Christians (Evangelicals) believe both are wrong.

There does, indeed, seem to be a political divide, but for good reason.

I must have missed the links you provided where you clearly demonstrated the position he holds on those issues. All the quotes where we could clearly see what he said about homosexuality and abortion. Because it could not possibly be that he was talking about putting children in cages, separating small children from their parents, dehumanzing talk and stuff like that. And even if he did it seems you would not care as long as you can find anything you disagree with him on. I don't know what his position is with regards to abortion and homosexauls - and it means nothing with regard to the opening post. But I am yet to see you support the statements you make about him - seemingly yet again to avoid his points in the opening post.

"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.

I would guess that his position on homosexuals is imaterial to whether we should respond "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."? Or, perhaps you think, if he is wrong (or disagrees with you) on something, you can avoid that obligation?

And the same goes for the rest of the points. You are a text book example of someone who is only able to focus on the man and not his message. And the lack of links to support your statements about him and the lack of willingnes to adress his points gives me a very clear impressioon of why.

[simplicio]

Where were evangelicals during the civil rights years?

That was then, this is now: When asked whether MLK was a Bible Christian, few could bring themselves to say that he was. And the poster who is the expert on all things Baptist cast doubt on the authorship of Letter from a Birmingham Jail, probably one of the greatest and profound Christian writings of the 20th century.

And given what evangelicals said about black Christians, a group of Christian who accept progressive Christianity and things like CRT (which is too triggerring for evangelicals here to discuss.

I do not think that American evangelicals are necessarily racist, but that they can look at racism and be blind to it. That is what Fea was referring to, in part.

[Charles]

I "got this" from an article Fea wrote where he takes Evanglicals to task for not supporting the homosexual agenda.

Seems Charles is absolutely clueless as to who Fea is, or what he believes.

I must have missed the link, Cow Poke.

And it still remains a question why it is important with regard to the fear you seem to have. But let's see the link first.

[Charles]

Where were evangelicals during the civil rights years?

That was then, this is now: When asked whether MLK was a Bible Christian, few could bring themselves to say that he was. And the poster who is the expert on all things Baptist cast doubt on the authorship of Letter from a Birmingham Jail, probably one of the greatest and profound Christian writings of the 20th century.

And given what evangelicals said about black Christians, a group of Christian who accept progressive Christianity and things like CRT (which is too triggerring for evangelicals here to discuss.

I do not think that American evangelicals are necessarily racist, but that they can look at racism and be blind to it. That is what Fea was referring to, in part.

Correct, that it what he is referring to in part. Inhuman treatment of others and dehumanzing talk. The strategy from those who have turned their blind eye to this is to hope he is "wrong" about homosexuals. Because then we can continue to turn our bland eye to whatever he says about the weak and vulnerable who (by the way) were also created in the image of God (or at least they claim to believe so though judging by their action I allow myself to doubt it).

So this whole "focus on the man" seems (knowingly or not) to be an attempt to continue to turn the blind eye to it.

[simplicio]

This claim is a lie foisted by enemies of the Cross. Good to see you, ff.

And just who is an "enemy of Christ"? The term is used with such carelessness that it is as empty of meaning as "pro abortion". Fea disagrees with conservatives on some issues like Trump, and he is not sufficiently anti abortion to be labeled evangelical, you needed a whole new set of definitions, complete with distinctions between Evangelical and evangelical.

Smile.

[Charles]

When I read your post I was reminded of this rather interesting podcast that you, and other twebbers, could perhaps find interesting:

A PRESIDENT'S FAITH AND WHY EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP

Stephen Mansfield is the author of the new book, "Choosing Donald Trump: God, Anger, Hope, and Why Christian Conservatives Supported Him." Mansfield examines how religious leaders justified their support for Trump and whether Donald Trump is a man of faith. [...]

https://www.podcastone.com/episode/A...r-Donald-Trump

And, no, I have not checked Stephen Mansfields position on homosexuals or any other area in which some twebbers would focus. I simply just listened to his points and arguments

[simplicio]

questions for posters: Who knew about the clear distinctions of the differences between Evangelical and evangelical? Just what is the difference?

Cowpoke earlier noted that Evangelical, with the capital E, was an elevation of political partisanship, then later confused the issue with "Capital E Evangelicals" by introducing biblical inerrancy. I got the distinct impression that early in this thread he classified himself as a small e evangelical.

[simplicio]

It's an important point, Charles, and I tried a number of times to point out the difference, but you just plowed ahead.

Just where did you point out a difference?

What you did do was divert the topic while being very obscure about the actual difference between Evangelical and evangelical.

For over 70 posts several posters have managed to avoid discussing the OP.

[Cow Poke]

I mean, it is a political one too. Look at how much one of the parties has staked on that aspect of identity politics.

One of the parties?

[Cow Poke]

I don't believe I've done that.

So, not "tossing out the Bible" - just ignoring it.

As an Independent, I'm beholden to neither party.

[Cow Poke]

I must have missed the link, Cow Poke.

I didn't provide a link. I expected you to do your own homework - after all, he's your guy!

And it still remains a question why it is important with regard to the fear you seem to have. But let's see the link first.

No fear - that's all in your imagination.

[Charles]

I didn't provide a link. I expected you to do your own homework - after all, he's your guy!



No fear - that's all in your imagination.

So you just made a claim about him that you are unwilling (or perhaps unable?) to support. That is duly noted.

[Cow Poke]

So you just made a claim about him that you are unwilling (or perhaps unable?) to support. That is duly noted.

So, you introduced a topic based on the opinion of a man you know absolutely nothing about, and are unwilling to do the most basic research to find out who he is. That is duly noted.

[Charles]

So, you introduced a topic based on the opinion of a man you know absolutely nothing about, and are unwilling to do the most basic research to find out who he is. That is duly noted.

Cow Poke, you make an unsported statement about his view and even when asked to support it you cannot. I have not made any statements about his view on homosexuals or claimed that he is generally wrong or right in all sorts of matters. Since I don't share his religion it should be rather obvious that I don't find him to be right about everything.

Your statement that I know absolutely nothing about him as wrong. It is simply a false statement. Quite revealing that you combine those with unsupported claims.

And even when failing to support your claims you are still missing out the most important part, namely that even if you could support them, it would not prove the point in the opening post to be wrong. It seems you are so stuck in the "focus on the person" strategy that you would rather make statements and not support them than actually deal with what he actually says instead of making unsupported statements about what you claim he has said in other contexts.