Evangelicals full of fear

[Cow Poke]

Look:

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

OK, that's an actual quote of what I said. First, kudos for doing that!

The reason I asked of a direct quote is because I knew your summary here....

It is very, very simple. Cow Poke makes a statement that a certain person holds a particular view.

...was bogus. Rather than follow your example and accusing you of dishonesty, I'll chalk that up to the excuse you frequently use "English is not my first language".

You were made aware of it yesterday too but still you claim it is unclear what I am asking for. The dishonesty is quite obvious. Anyone can go here to the post I wrote yesterday asking for your source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post730208

I have been asking you to support he holds this view numerous times and you have refused to provide the link. It is as simple as that.

Prediction: You will still dodge around and we will never see your source (if you have one). Even if you do it is a mystery why it is so secret.

So, you are incorrect that I claimed he "holds a particular view", as what I was saying was that he is critical of issues that an Evangelical would not be attacking. I believe MM even posted the exact reference, and I acknowledged that was what I was referencing. I'll look for that exchange, and I'll be happy to REPEAT it.

Meanwhile, you need to wipe the peanut butter off your crystal ball, because your predictive skills stink out loud.

[Mountain Man]

If you had the eyes to see you would know that this thread is certainly not an attack on Christianity. It is a way of questioning the actions of certain Christians who fail at act according to the Bible. That you cannot see the difference is in itself quite telling.

Right, you are sooooooo concerned that Christians live according to an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

More like you have an idea of how you would prefer us to behave, and you think you can browbeat us into bending to your desires.

The greatest attack on Christianity on tweb is from people like you. What you did not know about Ox is that he has actually asked me to explain my situation to him to share his view and give his advice. Do you think, perhaps, that is closer to leading people to faith than name calling, insults and claims that it is great for a Christian to support the idea that children should be seperated from their parents with no plans for reunification? I would guess most readers know the anwer. I am not too sure about you.

And yet you're in here every day attacking Christians and tearing down their faith. Sorry, Chuck, but I don't believe for a moment that your questions about Christianity are based on a sincere desire to understand. Your tone and approach in these open threads would be completely different if that was the case. ox might be willing to play your game, but not me.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know if ox realizes how he's playing into the hands of people like Charles who love to see Christian against Christian. When an anti-Christian posts something critical of Christians and their faith, and ox runs in and says, "Yeah, I agree!", frankly, I can't see any upside to it.

I don't think Ox has a clue - I honestly believe he is so wrapped up in his contempt for Trump that it colors his view on pretty much everything else. That said, I've realized it's no reason to be at war with him - I don't think he's doing it intentionally, and I don't think he's dishonest -- just deceived.

[Charles]

OK, that's an actual quote of what I said. First, kudos for doing that!

The reason I asked of a direct quote is because I knew your summary here....

...was bogus. Rather than follow your example and accusing you of dishonesty, I'll chalk that up to the excuse you frequently use "English is not my first language".



So, you are incorrect that I claimed he "holds a particular view", as what I was saying was that he is critical of issues that an Evangelical would not be attacking. I believe MM even posted the exact reference, and I acknowledged that was what I was referencing. I'll look for that exchange, and I'll be happy to REPEAT it.

Meanwhile, you need to wipe the peanut butter off your crystal ball, because your predictive skills stink out loud.

The prediction was absolutely correct. There was no link (again).

[Mountain Man]

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians believe the Bible. I do not for numerous reasons"

Skeptics after President Trump: "Many Christians no longer believe the Bible but still insist to be called Christians. They don't have much integrity and are OK with whataboutism and a very relative moral standard. I no longer disagree with them on religious matters since it appears they don't believe. I find them to support what is morally wrong and I find that they contradict themselves and everything they claim I should believe."

The second statement is nothing more than a wordier version of the first statement.

So I ask again, what's really changed?

[Cow Poke]

The prediction was absolutely correct. There was no link (again).

I was busy doing your homework, Charles .....

Here's the 'exact quote' you SHOULD have provided....

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

THAT one, sir, is the support for the claim you made that you failed to give. (And, note - I had ALREADY POSTED it, but you ignored it)

Now, if you'll keep your panties on just a tad, I'm still going through the thread...

So...... this is part of that discussion...

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?

More on his emphasis that the American Bible Society was focusing on an affirmation of the definition of "family" (which is consistent with scriptural teaching) and, according to Fea, causing "many" (without attempting to justify "many") persons to leave their employ because they were actively engaged in alternate lifestyles.

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)

So, claiming he's an "Evangelical", and admitting "he has broken with evangelicalism's mainstream" (as you put it) isn't problematic for you? I'm betting not in the least.

The gist of it is that the American Bible Society decided they didn't want persons who were engaged in same-sex relationships as employees. That is consistent with Evangelical beliefs - that the Scriptures (which I also referenced, but you apparently missed - I believe it was point #6 in Barna's cite) are being dismissed with regards to the condemnation of homosexuality.

His (Fea's) attack is because this is a CHANGE from the "historical" mission of the American Bible Society, and his accusation is that they have become TOO EVANGELICAL.

The fact is that their founders never imagined that one day they would have employees who were openly living in same-sex relationships, and they saw a need to address that. Because, that's an Evangelical position.

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

Now, Charles, if you can put down your incredibly faulty crystal ball, and observe a brief moratorium on your propensity of falsely accusing people of lying, maybe you can respond to the fact that I HAVE addressed the issue, but are so cranius rectuminated as to not see it?

AGAIN, here is the link to the whole interview.

[Mountain Man]

I don't think Ox has a clue - I honestly believe he is so wrapped up in his contempt for Trump that it colors his view on pretty much everything else. That said, I've realized it's no reason to be at war with him - I don't think he's doing it intentionally, and I don't think he's dishonest -- just deceived.

I agree, I don't see any malice in him. He actually reminds me of myself many, many years when I wasn't so much wrestling with my faith as I was wrestling with religious authority and tradition and trying to find my own path through Christianity. In my case, I ended up where I needed to be, but as I looked at the journey behind me, I couldn't help but think, "You know, it would have been so much faster and easier if I had simply followed the trail that had already been blazed."

[oxmixmudd]

You can't just graciously accept contrition?

I was trying to ... consider that I was simply trying help clarify that the result you observe

e.g. "Because he so often sides with these guys, "

is not actually a result of picking 'a side', but rather just which elements I perceive as true, and which I do not. As you saw, I 'sided' with you against simplicio on the Nursing home thread even though on other issues I've tended to 'side' with simplicio. But really, it had nothing to do with 'siding' with someone, nor does it ever have anything to do with 'siding' with someone in terms of a given topic of discussion. It just has to do with what is true and what is not - as I understand it.

On that, we can agree to disagree, because I still think your whole worldview is skewed by your contempt for Trump.

We certainly disagree a good bit on that. But that disagreement often becomes more personal than academic, hence what carpe dubbed 'the war between you (CP) and Jim'

Sometimes we become what we despise, Jim, and you have a tendency to do the bully thing yourself, but I doubt you'd ever see that.

Perhaps - but as I see it, when I am harsh or mean, I am either reacting to a harshness or meanness that immediately preceded that reply (not some weeks in the past), OR I am just really mad at how mean that person is being to someone else. Being human, I am sure there are exceptions. But I try each day not to initiate anything unpleasant towards any specific person here on this site.

I have no doubt you believe that.

Now, you have complained above I can't see the reality of what I do. Can you see the reality of what you just did right there in that statement in context to what it is a reply to?

And, from your end, what would help to "smooth things out"?

Well I think that is the ultimate point CP. We each can only control our end. So I have ideas of what will help on my end, but they won't accomplish much unless all sides are working on what they can do over and above trying to direct what the other fellow does (in this i am referring to the limited topic of 'smoothing things over').

What I hope to accomplish by laying out my motives explicitly is to give you something objective to look at when you perceive my motives as 'something else'. If you can see my motives in light of what I've said, perhaps it will be easier not to feel a need to lash out at me personally.

What I don't currently have a good handle on is what is the best way to respond when you or others start in with the insults, or when you or others are ganging up on another person. I know what I need to do before that happens, and I think most of the time I'm doing it. But once you (or others) start in with the jabs, it gets less clear.

[Cow Poke]

....We certainly disagree a good bit on that. But that disagreement often becomes more personal than academic, hence what carpe dubbed 'the war between you (CP) and Jim'

Well, yeah, two parties, and I admitted my complicity without excuse.

....Well I think that is the ultimate point CP. We each can only control our end. So I have ideas of what will help on my end, but they won't accomplish much unless all sides are working on what they can do over and above trying to direct what the other fellow does.....

And, on "my end", I have decided I'm no longer at war with you.

What I don't currently have a good handle on is what is the best way to respond when you or others start in with the insults, or when you or others are ganging up on another person.

History, Jim. In the past, you have been quite aggressive, and excused it pretty much by declaring "well, YOU STARTED it", and there are times when, IN MY OPINION, you're a bit hypocritical with your "calls for peace" when you're just as bad -- except, again, you excuse it by "well, when they hit, I'm gonna hit back". (not sure what version of the Bible that "turn the other cheek" comes from )

I know what I need to do before that happens, and I think most of the time I'm doing it. But once you (or others) start in with the jabs, it gets less clear.

Sparko and Rogue and I jab at each other all the time - because we FELLOWSHIP... we goof off together, we share things besides battles. I can't think of a single post from you expressing joy, or fellowship, or friendship. There was that whole round of "I have no friends", and....

I'm just recognizing that you seem to be in --- IN MY OPINION --- a rather dark place, and I'm going to do my best not to antagonize it.

[Cow Poke]

And here is where I dealt with the definition of Evangelical that you guys keep crying about....

Why am I not surprised?

In its entirety....

I see that you still have not understood that First Things among others use E all the time and that Cow Poke's quora definition by a random user was limited at best and in some cases wrong.

Charles - I gave ONE EXAMPLE which you seem to think was necessarily intended to be exhaustive and complete. You jump to such illogical conclusions.

George Barna does a good job of defining Evangelical:

[Cow Poke]

AND..... because I knew you guys would either ignore that, or fail to comprehend it, I even broke it down for you....

So, lemme break that down....

The first two points define "Born again Christians".
The next seven points, along with the first two, define "Evangelicals".

Mind you, this is Barna - a very well known and highly respected authority on Christianity, not just some 'historian/blogger' who has an axe to grind with Evangelicals....

1. they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today
2. and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

1. saying their faith is very important in their life today;
2. believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
3. believing that Satan exists;
4. believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works;
5. believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth;
6. asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches;
7. and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

[Charles]

I was busy doing your homework, Charles .....

Here's the 'exact quote' you SHOULD have provided....



THAT one, sir, is the support for the claim you made that you failed to give. (And, note - I had ALREADY POSTED it, but you ignored it)

Now, if you'll keep your panties on just a tad, I'm still going through the thread...

So...... this is part of that discussion...

More on his emphasis that the American Bible Society was focusing on an affirmation of the definition of "family" (which is consistent with scriptural teaching) and, according to Fea, causing "many" (without attempting to justify "many") persons to leave their employ because they were actively engaged in alternate lifestyles.



So, claiming he's an "Evangelical", and admitting "he has broken with evangelicalism's mainstream" (as you put it) isn't problematic for you? I'm betting not in the least.

The gist of it is that the American Bible Society decided they didn't want persons who were engaged in same-sex relationships as employees. That is consistent with Evangelical beliefs - that the Scriptures (which I also referenced, but you apparently missed - I believe it was point #6 in Barna's cite) are being dismissed with regards to the condemnation of homosexuality.

His (Fea's) attack is because this is a CHANGE from the "historical" mission of the American Bible Society, and his accusation is that they have become TOO EVANGELICAL.

The fact is that their founders never imagined that one day they would have employees who were openly living in same-sex relationships, and they saw a need to address that. Because, that's an Evangelical position.

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.



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



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

Now, Charles, if you can put down your incredibly faulty crystal ball, and observe a brief moratorium on your propensity of falsely accusing people of lying, maybe you can respond to the fact that I HAVE addressed the issue, but are so cranius rectuminated as to not see it?

AGAIN, here is the link to the whole interview.

So, in short, in a number of rather harsh statements you seem to be making the point that you had already made the claim before and thus I should have realized it was correct. Luckily things don't work that way.

Interestingly we finally got the link so we could read what he is actually saying. It certainly does not support the claims you have made.

What he has written is not an opinion piece but a description of a development. He is not expressing his own opinion but rather lays out history and provides a historical analysis. Thus, the claim that he is pro same sex marriage is not supported in the text. The idea that he is blaming evangelicals or claiming anything got too evangelical is not correct either. He is simply describing a development.

You will note that he is using expresssions like: "Becoming more evangelical" which certainly differs from your claim that he says they have become "TOO EVANGELICAL". Once again a statement that is simply wrong.

Here is how he sums it up in short in the last part:

Many evangelicals, and I imagine a good number of conservative Catholics, will celebrate the “Affirmation of Biblical Community.” Others will part ways with the organization. Indeed, many already have.

Whatever one thinks about the new statement, it is definitely part of an ongoing effort by the evangelical leadership of ABS to redefine the historical identity of the Bible society movement.

So, again, after having asked for more than ten days for the actual link we finally get it only to see that the statements you made about Fea are not supported. You can disagree with his account of history as much as you like but to make claims about what he thinks about same sex marriage based on that is simply dishonest and not supported by the text.

[Cow Poke]

So, in short,...

...I'm just gonna ignore everything you said and pretend I'm still right.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, yeah, two parties, and I admitted my complicity without excuse.



And, on "my end", I have decided I'm no longer at war with you. p

I am trying to do the same thing. For such a 'cease fire' as it were to succeed however requires both parties not to be firing their weapons.

I'm just recognizing that you seem to be in --- IN MY OPINION --- a rather dark place, and I'm going to do my best not to antagonize it.

thanks.

[lilpixieofterror]

I agree, I don't see any malice in him. He actually reminds me of myself many, many years when I wasn't so much wrestling with my faith as I was wrestling with religious authority and tradition and trying to find my own path through Christianity. In my case, I ended up where I needed to be, but as I looked at the journey behind me, I couldn't help but think, "You know, it would have been so much faster and easier if I had simply followed the trail that had already been blazed."