Evangelicals full of fear

[Mountain Man]

Okay. Do you consider yourself to be uninformed about the Christian faith?

Charles was unaware of the distinction, therefore he is ignorant about the faith. Should we extend the same thinking towards your understanding of the faith?

So you're another one who didn't understand Cow Poke's comment. He never said, "You're ignorant of X; therefore, you are ignorant of Christian faith in general." Rather, he said, "Your ignorance of X is just another example of your ignorance of Christian faith in general." So, no, that same thinking does not extend to me.

Here we have a case of an [alleged] evangelical and an academic who wrote [an opinion].

And?

[Cow Poke]

And the interesting part is that in this case you can mention all that and it is not a criticism of Christianity at all. It is, however, an attempt to learn from history. Seems some fear that as well.

Do we need to cover the distinction between Christianity and Evangelicalism, Charles?

[Charles]

It was.



It was an opinion. What you post is opinion. Opinions of Charles should not be taken at face value. Remember that next time.

What you posted, Charles, was a hit piece on Evangelicals by a guy who makes his living writing articles, blogging, and making speeches critical of Evangelicals, and YOU were dumb enough to identify HIM as an Evangelical. Great work!!!

So, it was an opinion and yet you want to claim I was wrong for not knowing the opinion. Interesting conclusion. Seems you don't want anyone to control your description and when that happens, you claim it was an example. However, right after that it somehow, anyway, is used to claim I was wrong. If I can prove anyone wrong by a random quote from quora, it will be easy to win any discussion.

I don't know which of my posts you refer to with regard to your "opinion" statement. I can, however, inform you that when I refer to Merriam Webster's description of correct use, it is not my opinion. I can inform you that when I refer you to First Things' description of their practice it is not opinion, it is me providing you information on how they use it.

It seems the history lesson from Ox was lost on you: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post728132

[Cow Poke]

But then again, you have also made statements about Fea and failed to support them, even when asked.

Here's how this works, Charles. YOU identified him as an Evangelical. It is YOUR responsibility to support that claim - it is NOT my responsibility to prove a negative.

His frequent criticism of Evangelicals, along with his support of issues that would be problematic for Evangelicals, challenges your dopey claim.

[Charles]

Do we need to cover the distinction between Christianity and Evangelicalism, Charles?

You might find something interesting about that on quora. If you ask me, many Evangelicals are confused about the distinction and seem to accept the unholy alliance between politics and their faith, even when they contradict each others. Which, by the way, leads us straight to the opening post though I can see most of the posters prefer to avoid the opening post. Only to support Fea's statement by the way (ironically).

[Mountain Man]

It is, however, an attempt to learn from history. Seems some fear that as well.

Hard to learn anything from a disingenuous historian. As I wrote in an earlier post (and look, Chuck, here's the discussion ox claims you're looking for, but every time I've posted anything in this thread that directly addresses the OP, you've ignored it):

"I can't help but feel like this is not only a broad brush accusation (as if all evangelicals walk in lockstep), but also rather ignorant of US history. There was a time in the US not too long ago when you could throw a rock into a crowd and have an excellent chance of hitting someone who would have called himself a Christian, so to say that Christians opposed civil rights, suffrage, etc. ignores the fact that on the opposite side of the debate were just as many Christians who supported it."

[Cow Poke]

Here's how this works, Charles. YOU identified him as an Evangelical. It is YOUR responsibility to support that claim - it is NOT my responsibility to prove a negative.

His frequent criticism of Evangelicals, along with his support of issues that would be problematic for Evangelicals, challenges your dopey claim.

Also, I provided Barna's definition of Evangelical, and Barna is actually a known in the world of religion, where John Fea is simply a "who is THAT?"

[Charles]

Here's how this works, Charles. YOU identified him as an Evangelical. It is YOUR responsibility to support that claim - it is NOT my responsibility to prove a negative.

His frequent criticism of Evangelicals, along with his support of issues that would be problematic for Evangelicals, challenges your dopey claim.

And I have done so. If you think criticism of a particular group means you are not part of the group, you are acting rather childish. Great political parties are those that can deal with self criticism. Great persons are those who can deal with self criticism.

It seems you have given up your plan to provide support for some of your (irrelevant) statements about Fea in other contexts and now somehow want to return to something else. I have never asked you to prove a negative. That is a task you seem to have taken upon yourself to some extent.

[Cow Poke]

And I have done so.

No, you have not.

If you think criticism of a particular group means you are not part of the group, you are acting rather childish.

You're really dumb enough to come to THAT conclusion?

Great political parties are those that can deal with self criticism. Great persons are those who can deal with self criticism.

You would have been far more honest if you had simply left out deceptive identification of Fea as an "Evangelical".

It seems you have given up your plan to provide support for some of your (irrelevant) statements about Fea in other contexts and now somehow want to return to something else. I have never asked you to prove a negative. That is a task you seem to have taken upon yourself to some extent.

Again, you would be in error, but that is certainly no surprise.

[Charles]

Also, I provided Barna's definition of Evangelical, and Barna is actually a known in the world of religion, where John Fea is simply a "who is THAT?"

Whether you knew him or not is irrelevant to what he said. If the pope had said those words, it would not make the point any stronger. Still stuck in the "person not the case" narrative. Must be frustrating.

[Charles]

Hard to learn anything from a disingenuous historian. As I wrote in an earlier post (and look, Chuck, here's the discussion ox claims you're looking for, but every time I've posted anything in this thread that directly addresses the OP, you've ignored it):

"I can't help but feel like this is not only a broad brush accusation (as if all evangelicals walk in lockstep), but also rather ignorant of US history. There was a time in the US not too long ago when you could throw a rock into a crowd and have an excellent chance of hitting someone who would have called himself a Christian, so to say that Christians opposed civil rights, suffrage, etc. ignores the fact that on the opposite side of the debate were just as many Christians who supported it."

It seems rather wishful thinking on your side when you "can't help but feel" it is broad brush accusations. Seems you did not even read the article:

[/QUOTE]The primary reading audience is my fellow evangelicals," Fea explained in a recent interview, "but there's a secondary audience, and that is anyone who wants to understand why 81 percent of evangelicals supported Donald Trump.https://www.popmatters.com/believe-m...579257864.html[/QUOTE]


It seems to me you are somehow trying to make the argument that we cannot study the history of Christianity if we back to a time when more people identified as Christians. Is that really your position? If it is, let me know and I will adress it.

And let me quote the article once again, now we are talking history:

That fear has always been part of evangelical culture, and one of Fea's most illuminating chapters, titled "A Short History of Evangelical Fear", studies that odd topic going back to John Winthrop. When apparent threats to Christian culture have risen, people have frequently responded out of anxiety.

"Race is not going to be an important an issue for white evangelicals who voted for Trump because they don't see that as important an issue as preserving their white Christian nation," says Fea. "Whenever there is a threat to that Christian nation – whether it be immigration, Catholics coming in in the 19th century, or slave revolts overturning the white social order – it's the evangelical Christians who are leading the charge against that social and demographic change."

[simplicio]

Do we need to cover the distinction between Christianity and Evangelicalism, Charles?

Actually yes you do, note Mountain Man's conflating Christianity and Evangelicalism and evangelicalism below.

Both Evangelicals and white evangelicals were absent from the civil rights movement, at least from side of the civil rights marchers. Letter from a Birmingham Jail had a bit to say about those Christians.

[Mountain Man]

And let me quote the article once again, now we are talking history:

Whenever there is a threat to that Christian nation -- whether it be immigration, Catholics coming in in the 19th century, or slave revolts overturning the white social order -- it's the evangelical Christians who are leading the charge against that social and demographic change.

Which, again, is a disingenuous and broad brush accusation because there was a time that the vast majority of Americans would have identified as Christian, so while there were Christians who might have opposed those things, there were just as many Christians who supported them. In other words, historically, Americans did not oppose something because they were Christian but simply because if there was any opposition, that group would inevitably include Christians, so I would rate Fea's statement as "true, but trivial". It would, in fact, be just as accurate to say that historically, it is Christians who have led the charge in promoting societal change.

[oxmixmudd]

Actually yes you do, note Mountain Man's conflating Christianity and Evangelicalism and evangelicalism below.

Both Evangelicals and white evangelicals were absent from the civil rights movement, at least from side of the civil rights marchers. Letter from a Birmingham Jail had a bit to say about those Christians.

With one notable exception in Billy Graham. There are some who wish he had done more, but he was not passive or on the wrong side of it:

https://faithtalk1360.com/articles/s...ights-movement



That statement highlights both sides. The Usher would not,so Graham did it himself. I would guarantee you the Usher represented many 'E'vangelicals during that time, but Graham was also an Evangelical, if you get my meaning.

[Cow Poke]

Whether you knew him or not is irrelevant to what he said.

A) It's not whether I knew him or not - it's that pretty much NOBODY here (in the Christian community) knew who he was
2) You misrepresented him as an Evangelical - he is not, by the definition I provided from Barna
C) You simply found a screed that resonated with you, so you posted it.

If the pope had said those words, it would not make the point any stronger.

I have no more faith in the Pope than I do in Fea.

Still stuck in the "person not the case" narrative. Must be frustrating.

What's frustrating is your inability to grasp the fact that YOU thought it was important to post this hit piece by a guy you claimed was "himself an Evangelical".

Charles - you're full of crap, and you're never going to get it -- you are absolutely consumed with confirmation bias.

Please feel free to spew forth more ignorance - I'm done with you*.



*Carpien done