Evangelicals full of fear

[Mountain Man]

...if you had actually cared to deal with what he says and not the person you would know that his reasons are given as part of his statements.

John Fea has an opinion. I disagree with his opinion. What more is there to say? Do you have any compelling reasons why you think I should change my mind? Let's hear it.

[Mountain Man]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinio...mn/4421150002/

John Fea

I've also seen Christians rise to their feet and pump their fists in the air when there favorite team wins a game. So what?

[Cow Poke]

John Fea has an opinion. I disagree with his opinion. What more is there to say? Do you have any compelling reasons why you think I should change my mind? Let's hear it.

Aside from Charles finding somebody who agrees with his position on something, and declaring them an Evangelical?

[simplicio]

So, you're making my point that he's not an "Evangelical" after all.

Thank you!

But is he evangelical?

[Watermelon]

Aside from Charles finding somebody who agrees with his position on something, and declaring them an Evangelical?

[simplicio]

Ummm, you are using the capital E Evangelical incorrectly. Fea is not a capital E Evangelical according to Cowpokes earlier definition. And it appears that CP is switching back and forth using the ambiguities of language to dodge around the points made.

[Watermelon]

John Fea has an opinion. I disagree with his opinion. What more is there to say? Do you have any compelling reasons why you think I should change my mind? Let's hear it.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....rticle/563558/

The link has a brief summary of why he feels that evangelicals are driven by fear and he comes to that conclusion from the political positions taken by Evangelicals through history. He sees a pattern of white Evangelicals holding the belief that the US is solely their country and therefore expect to have their culture and way of life protected by law while having no regard for other cultures.

[Watermelon]

Ummm, you are using the capital E Evangelical incorrectly. Fea is not a capital E Evangelical according to Cowpokes earlier definition. And it appears that CP is switching back and forth using the ambiguities of language to dodge around the points made.

Is capital E Evangelical short for a white conservative evangelical?

[Cow Poke]

Ummm, you are using the capital E Evangelical incorrectly. Fea is not a capital E Evangelical according to Cowpokes earlier definition. And it appears that CP is switching back and forth using the ambiguities of language to dodge around the points made.

False.

[Cow Poke]

Is capital E Evangelical short for a white conservative evangelical?

Capital E "Evangelical" is pretty much a pejorative to describe those of us to still believe in old fashioned soul-winning, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and there will be an eternal reward in Heaven for the Redeemed, and an everlasting punishment for the lost.

It's kinda like when the liberals in the SBC were calling us "FunDAMNmentalists".

[Mountain Man]

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....rticle/563558/

The link has a brief summary of why he feels that evangelicals are driven by fear and he comes to that conclusion from the political positions taken by Evangelicals through history. He sees a pattern of white Evangelicals holding the belief that the US is solely their country and therefore expect to have their culture and way of life protected by law while having no regard for other cultures.

Like I said, John Fea has an opinion. I disagree with his opinion. What more is there to say?

[Cow Poke]

Is capital E Evangelical short for a white conservative evangelical?

To an incredibly prejudiced individual, apparently so.

[simplicio]

Is capital E Evangelical short for a white conservative evangelical?

[Charles]

The question is, what road are they paving?

Yep. He might tempt people to not engage in the unholy alliance between religion and politics. It could be dangerous for those who have bought into that and whose integrity and identity depends on it. It will, however, not last. He is paving a way past what has already turned out to be a tragedy for those who are able to see.

[Charles]

Post #116 was presented as a description of the use of "Evangelical". In later revisionist history, when it turned out that the quora-definition Cow Poke had depended on was limited at best and wrong in some cases, it was presented as an example of the use. What Cow Poke (or the random Quora user provided) was certainly not EGGzackly right. The use of it has varied to some extent but it seems the main point was to dodge the points in the opening post no matter if it meant continual use of what had already been shown to be wrong or limited at best.

Seems all that was more important than letting someone actualy guide by pointing to what the Bible actually says.