Evangelicals full of fear

[Cow Poke]

Post #116 was presented as a description of the use of "Evangelical"....

It was an example, Charles, which needed clarified. That happens in honest discussions.

[Charles]

Relax, Charles -- the OP simply did not ring true, so I spent some time looking into who John Fea is. That I have not YET provided any links does not in any way mean that I CANNOT or WILL NOT reveal my sources. I'm still looking into this, but Easter is kinda my busiest time of the year.

Patience, Charles.

And the support for the claims you made back then...

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

Is to be found...???

[Cow Poke]

And the support for the claims you made back then...

Is to be found...???

...by using Google or DuckDuckGo.

[Charles]

It was an example, Charles, which needed clarified. That happens in honest discussions.

It was not presented as an example and the fact that you now try to turn it into that still does not seem very honest. Given the consequences it would have for numerous statements you have made in this thread about "Evangelicals" I have a feeling why you are a bit troubled by it all. You would have to admit I was not wrong when using "Evangelical" in the opening post, and you would have to admit that your attempts to prove so were based on a quora defitioned that (surprise, surprise) turned out to be a bit... shall we say limited...

[Cow Poke]

It was not presented as an example......

It was intended as such, Charles, but you'd rather do battle over it, and I'm just not interested in that.

[Charles]

...by using Google or DuckDuckGo.

And I remind you that you wrote: "That I have not YET provided any links does not in any way mean that I CANNOT or WILL NOT reveal my sources. I'm still looking into this, but Easter is kinda my busiest time of the year."

Do you trust anyone who makes a claim and supports it by saying: "I will not provide a source. Do a google search."? Is this really, really all you care to support your statements. You made certain claims about a person. You have been asked again and again to support it.

[Cow Poke]

...You would have to admit I was not wrong when using "Evangelical" in the opening post....

No, you were indeed wrong. Fea is a guy who makes a living writing articles, blogging, and making speeches critical of Evangelicals. Evangelicals simply don't do that.

[Cow Poke]

And I remind you that you wrote: "That I have not YET provided any links does not in any way mean that I CANNOT or WILL NOT reveal my sources. I'm still looking into this, but Easter is kinda my busiest time of the year."

Do you trust anyone who makes a claim and supports it by saying: "I will not provide a source. Do a google search."? Is this really, really all you care to support your statements. You made certain claims about a person. You have been asked again and again to support it.

Pearls before swine, Charles.

[Charles]

It was intended as such, Charles, but you'd rather do battle over it, and I'm just not interested in that.

I see why you are not interested in that. It shows that you have made numerous wrong statements and that even your dodging around "Evangelical" was based on a very, very limited understanding. To some extent even a misunderstanding.

Combine this with your refusal to provide links to support that he has written stuff you hold against him and...

[Cow Poke]

I see why you are not interested in that. It shows that you have made numerous wrong statements and that even your dodging around "Evangelical" was based on a very, very limited understanding. To some extent even a misunderstanding.

No, Charles, that's not what it shows. That's what you see, because that's what you're looking for.

Combine this with your refusal to provide links to support that he has written stuff you hold against him and...

"Refusal"?

What, specifically, would you like to see, Charles?

[Charles]

Pearls before swine, Charles.

If all you care about the statements in the Bible for is to use them to avoid having to provide sources for statements you make about other persons that you seemingly cannot support, then what you provide is not pearls before swine. We are getting closer to something that is unfit, even for swine.

[Cow Poke]

If all you care about....

False premise, what follows is ignored.

[Charles]

False premise, what follows is ignored.

Your use of the Bible to support the idea that you can just make statements you will not support, then claim you will do so later, and when held up to that still refuse to do so is surely taking the message of that book in vain. It is a complete disrespect for the actual message of that book to use it as some sort of ad hominem justified by God. What a testimony.

[Cow Poke]

Your use of the Bible to support the idea that you can just make statements you will not support, then claim you will do so later, and when held up to that still refuse to do so is surely taking the message of that book in vain. It is a complete disrespect for the actual message of that book to use it as some sort of ad hominem justified by God. What a testimony.

You do make me smile.

[Mountain Man]

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.

That's not the saying I was thinking of.

Oh, and it seems you "forgot" to answer my question: What reason can you offer for us to think that Fea's opinions are necessarily correct?