Evangelicals full of fear

[Cow Poke]

So which is the point that disqualifies Fea?

Number 6 would be a good start.

[Mountain Man]

The average person, non-evangelical, does not believe the world is 10,000 years old or so. 38% of Evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, does not see evolution as false. Most Evangelicals do (64%) (in defining 'average person' I am not saying irreligious or non-Christian, and 60% of those accept it as the history of life)

The average person, non-evangelical, does not reject the science related to Global Warming. Some 37% of evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, is not sitting around interpreting every effort at global unity as a sign of the rise of the anti-Christ. I don't have a stat for that.

There are significant differences between the average sort of scientific illiteracy in this country that is the fault of its culture and educational system failures and the sort of extreme denial of basic facts derived from science by a large percentage in the Evangelical community.

I don't know what you think you're doing here, ox. First of all, your definition of "scientific literacy" seems to be "Anybody who happens to agree with my opinion about science", and the irony, of course, is that there are any number of atheists who would happily give you that label because of your belief that God is the author of the universe, that the miracles described in the Bible are true, that Jesus rose from the dead, etc., and yet you join with them in mocking any of your fellow Christians who might disagree with you about the age of the earth, and whether man is causing the earth to become catastrophically warmer. Do you think this somehow gives you an "in" with them and will make your witness stronger? I doubt it. That seems a bit like trying to proselytize a rich man by first boasting about the size of your bank account. I have to wonder how many atheists have gone on to use your words against other Christians, similar to how Charles is using Fea's words against us: "You're an idiot for believing that Jesus rose from the dead, and I regularly chat with a Christian on the internet who thinks you're an idiot for rejecting evolution."

[Cow Poke]

I don't know what you think you're doing here, ox. First of all, your definition of "scientific literacy" seems to be "Anybody who happens to agree with my opinion about science", and the irony, of course, is that there are any number of atheists who would happily give you that label because of your belief that God is the author of the universe, that the miracles described in the Bible are true, that Jesus rose from the dead, etc., and yet you join with them in mocking any of your fellow Christians who might disagree with you about the age of the earth, and whether man is causing the earth to become catastrophically warmer. Do you think this somehow gives you an "in" with them and will make your witness stronger? I doubt it. That seems a bit like trying to proselytize a rich man by first boasting about the size of your bank account. I have to wonder how many atheists have gone on to use your words against other Christians, similar to how Charles is using Fea's words against us: "You're an idiot for believing that Jesus rose from the dead, and I regularly chat with a Christian on the internet who thinks you're an idiot for rejecting evolution."

I think Jim has succumbed to the root of bitterness, and it has become a tree. His hatred for Trump has expanded into a contempt for anybody who doesn't also hate Trump. I think that's what you'll discover is the common denominator between Jim and choice of 'friends'.

A classic case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

[lilpixieofterror]

The average person, non-evangelical, does not believe the world is 10,000 years old or so. 38% of Evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, does not see evolution as false. Most Evangelicals do (64%) (in defining 'average person' I am not saying irreligious or non-Christian, and 60% of those accept it as the history of life)

The average person, non-evangelical, does not reject the science related to Global Warming. Some 37% of evangelicals do.

The average person, non-evangelical, is not sitting around interpreting every effort at global unity as a sign of the rise of the anti-Christ. I don't have a stat for that.

There are significant differences between the average sort of scientific illiteracy in this country that is the fault of its culture and educational system failures and the sort of extreme denial of basic facts derived from science by a large percentage in the Evangelical community.

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

26% of people incorrectly answered that the sun orbits the earth.
Only 39% correctly answered that the universe started with a Big Bang.
48% believe humans stated from an earlier animal.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...th-survey-says

[mikewhitney]

While I agree with Tyson in the quote you are using, the problem for you is that you have demonstrated you dont actually know enough about many of the topics you post on to even legitimately have a claim to the former, let alone the latter.

The people he is talking about in the former are well educated people, competent in their field. Not people that demonstrate mistakes or lack of comprehension wrt basic concepts in a given field.

Cute. It was a caution to you, not a statement about myself. I'm just advising that you have built a straw house. But you are too smart to recognize that.

At least, your other response suggests an otherwise decent conception of some important aspects of Christianity. Glad to hear that much. I think part of the overall problem is that you are so close to DC that you have fallen for many secular-humanist philosophical elements.

[simplicio]

Number 6 would be a good start.

In what way has Fea disregarded the truth of the bible? Do you have an example?

[Cow Poke]

In what way has Fea disregarded the truth of the bible? Do you have an example?

Sure, I posted it earlier - he's pro same-sex marriage, which is unbiblical, and he uses that to slam Evangelicals.

[simplicio]

Sure, I posted it earlier - he's pro same-sex marriage, which is unbiblical, and he uses that to slam Evangelicals.

I was looking for stances of Fea's concerning the key stands of abortion and same sex marriage on the net, and could not find clear statements.

Would you summarize his stand on SSM or point to the post for me?

[simplicio]

Somewhat doubting this "John Fea" was, indeed, an Evangelical, I followed the links in the article to see who he was....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44045[/ATTACH]

Great job, Charles!

ETA:

What Kind of Christian is John Fea?



Which kinda blows up this little bit of drivel...



Next time, Charles, don't be such a simpleton in accepting somebody else's use of "Evangelical".

What good is faith in Christ if it is removed from morality? (the article commented on morality separated from the faith) Born again segregationists? Morality is an integral part of the faith, much of the Old Testament (the inconvenient parts of the Bible) deals with justice.

Fea's argument in that clip is that things like Jim Crow was morally problematic, and that the federal government's role was to act. The secular government needed to act because the Body of Christ failed to act.

What good is Christianity if it doesn't lead to faith in Christ? What good is faith in Christ if it does not lead towards morality?

[oxmixmudd]

I think Jim has succumbed to the root of bitterness, and it has become a tree. His hatred for Trump has expanded into a contempt for anybody who doesn't also hate Trump. I think that's what you'll discover is the common denominator between Jim and choice of 'friends'.

A classic case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

This is so rich coming from a man that spends nearly every post spewing insults at anyone and everyone that happens to disagree with him.

What you portray as a 'root of bitterness' is nothing more than someone willing to stand up for what is morally right. And who will not sit idly by and watch you cut other people down day after day after day.

[oxmixmudd]

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

26% of people incorrectly answered that the sun orbits the earth.
Only 39% correctly answered that the universe started with a Big Bang.
48% believe humans stated from an earlier animal.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...th-survey-says

First, it is possible the scientific illiteracy I point out is a US problem and not so much an evangelical problem.

Second, it is also possible that the stats you quote are coming from majority evangelicals.

And it could be the two are self supporting. That the anti science sentiment common in evangelical circles, coupled with the fact a large number of us citizens are evangelical in faith and/or in background, tends to produce scientifically illiterare citizens.

It would be beyond my current knowledge to sort all that out.

What I do know is that the evangelical people and groups I am aware of, includingvthe majority of the evangelicals on this site, are given over to an anti-science bias and ignorance that is on constant display.

And it is the consequence of that bias that concerns me greatly. The capacity to be manipulated on issues like global warming, immigration, polarization of our country, the election of a person like Trump, a good bit of this has as its core that same fear and distrust of knowledge and science.

But the illiteracy is but the symptom of the fear. And that same fear has also produced the sorts of wholesale departure from the fundamental moral tenets of the faith. We care more about stopping illegal immigration than the poverty and suffering that produces it. We care more about protecting our wealth than protecting the weak and vulnerable. We are willing to entertain unsupported claims iabout ndividuals whose politics we dont like yet will excuse the most grievous actions and immorality of those whose politics we do like.

And it's something I'm willing to speak out against, because as they say, all that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to remain silent.

What you should be asking yourself pix is why you are so willing to throw under the bus a person that is trying to stand for what is true and good in the face of the gradual corruption of christian faith and morals in evangelical circles in the name of politics and wealth.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't know what you think you're doing here, ox. First of all, your definition of "scientific literacy" seems to be "Anybody who happens to agree with my opinion about science",

MM, you are demonstrating my point right here in the very first sentence. The basics of scientific knowledge do not rest with opinion, but with a set of objective methods and procedures and principles of analysis. The fact the world is warmer now than 100 years ago, the fact the co2 in the atmosphere is rising and higher than any other time in human history, the fact human activity is generating all that extra co2, these are not opinions, they are measured data and facts. What I am talking about goes way beyond a mere lack of knowledge or even just legitimate uncertainty that goes with the iterative nature of scientific research and learning. We are talking about a culture steeped in the denial of some of the most basic facts that have emerged from years of study and careful application of those same scientific principles. In a way that is destructive to ourselves and the credibility of the Gospel itself.

and the irony, of course, is that there are any number of atheists who would happily give you that label because of your belief that God is the author of the universe, that the miracles described in the Bible are true, that Jesus rose from the dead, etc., and yet you join with them in mocking any of your fellow Christians who might disagree with you about the age of the earth, and whether man is causing the earth to become catastrophically warmer.

The difference, again, lies between the belief in that which is provably false, the denial of that which can be demonstrated, and the belief in that which is hopeful but unprovable. The difference between ignoring a spouse's infidelity even holding pictures of that same spouse naked in bed with another, and believing in an otherwise faithful spouse when they are away on a business trip.

Both of the above can be lauded or criticized under the generic banner of 'faith'. But the former is a very unhealthy case of denial, whereas the latter is necessary for and a typical response to a successful marriage.

Do you think this somehow gives you an "in" with them and will make your witness stronger? I doubt it. That seems a bit like trying to proselytize a rich man by first boasting about the size of your bank account.

MM - the question here is why you find it so improbable that my motivation is nothing more complicated than a devotion to truth and honesty. So much so that you must invent or impose other more nefarious motivations when they don't exist.

I have to wonder how many atheists have gone on to use your words against other Christians, similar to how Charles is using Fea's words against us: "You're an idiot for believing that Jesus rose from the dead, and I regularly chat with a Christian on the internet who thinks you're an idiot for rejecting evolution."

Unfortunately, being committed to the truth means being subject to it as well. To the extent Fea's words have distorted the Truth, you are justified in perceiving them as an attack. But to the extent Fea's words are True, then it is our responsibilty to acknowkedge them and work to remedy them first in ourselves, and then in the community where we have influence. And the most difficult thing there is is to objectively parse what is true in a statement that cuts at some real flaw in who we are.

But in the end, that is my motivation MM. To do what I can to remedy this burgeoning problem within the communities where I have some influence. Recognizing that the first step to solving any problem is to admit the problem exists.

[Cow Poke]

This is so rich coming from a man that spends nearly every post spewing insults at anyone and everyone that happens to disagree with him.

This is a steaming pile of horsie poo. It is your root of bitterness that causes that perception, Jim, along with your incredibly thin skin.

What you portray as a 'root of bitterness' is nothing more than someone willing to stand up for what is morally right.

You do that on occasion, too, while spewing forth hatred and disdain - hence, the "root of bitterness". You hate Trump, and anybody who doesn't also hate Trump.

And who will not sit idly by and watch you cut other people down day after day after day.

And your root of bitterness blinds you from the fact that you're doing the very same thing you hypocritically accuse others of.

[Cow Poke]

I was looking for stances of Fea's concerning the key stands of abortion and same sex marriage on the net, and could not find clear statements.

Would you summarize his stand on SSM or point to the post for me?

Google Fea and American Bible Society, for example.

[simplicio]

Google Fea and American Bible Society, for example.

Fea noted that the American Bible Society shifted it mission statement about twenty years ago, a mission statement which excludes those who deny the virgin birth. But from what I have read Fea does not deny creedal Christianity. As an historian he was entirely within his scope to note the change in direction of the group, in fact he would have been remiss.

Are you referring to that?

I know elsewhere he has broken with evangelicalism's mainstream for its emphasis on supply side of abortions and empty posturing, rather than addressing the demand side. On that point I agree with him. But that in no way means he is "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". (he disagrees with the strategy of overturning Roe v. Wade without addressing the reasons women seek abortions)