Evangelicals full of fear

[Mountain Man]

As the late crazy TV preacher Gene Scott once said, "I didn't fall away from Christianity, I fell away from religion."

I don't know much else about the man or what he really believed, but that remark always resonated with me.

[Cow Poke]

As the late crazy TV preacher Gene Scott once said, "I didn't fall away from Christianity, I fell away from religion."

I don't know much else about the man or what he really believed, but that remark always resonated with me.

Hey, is he the crazy guy that used to sit in a recliner smoking a big cigar?

[Mountain Man]

Hey, is he the crazy guy that used to sit in a recliner smoking a big cigar?

That's the guy.

[Cow Poke]

That's the guy.

I was flippin channels one night, and came across him -- he was just sitting there in that chair drawing on that big cigar.... not saying a word.... so I changed the channel, and eventually came back.

He looked at the TV camera and said "some of you just changed the channel, but you came back".

Then, he took another draw on the cigar, and said "Peter was a real jerk!" -- no explanation, no follow up.

[Mountain Man]

I was flippin channels one night, and came across him -- he was just sitting there in that chair drawing on that big cigar.... not saying a word.... so I changed the channel, and eventually came back.

He looked at the TV camera and said "some of you just changed the channel, but you came back".

Then, he took another draw on the cigar, and said "Peter was a real jerk!" -- no explanation, no follow up.

From what I know, he started out as a traditional theologically sound fire-and-brimstone TV preacher until he became disillusioned with religion and morphed into the cigar chomping crackpot that most people know him as. Every once in a while he would play one of his old sermons, but most of time it was just him and his cigar staring into the camera. He also used to hang out with Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion and said he was glad that Hefner thought of him as one of the good guys. And that's literally everything I know about the guy just from the random bits and pieces of his program that I stumbled across over the years.

[simplicio]

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

Charles listed some points which have validity, namely an historian wrote on a topic of history, and noted the change of course in the ABS. That change in course coincided with his argument made elsewhere, that there was a shift in American evangelicalism. That historian is also a Christian.

Does that idea on a change in course bear examination? I think so.

Fea is an evangelical who believes in the historically accepted view of marriage, accepted by Christians and others for millenia , but he questions the politics surrounding the current discussion of marriage and the role of government.

[Charles]

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

I actually did show that you were wrong in the claims you had made about him. The statements you made about Fea are not supporthed by the source. So, it took you more than 10 days to provide the source. And when we got it we could easily see it did not support your claims. And those claims, along with the "e" or "E" distinction (that you did not get right either) were all to avoid the main points in the opening post.

[simplicio]

I actually did show that you were wrong in the claims you had made about him. The statements you made about Fea are not supporthed by the source. So, it took you more than 10 days to provide the source. And when we got it we could easily see it did not support your claims. And those claims, along with the "e" or "E" distinction (that you did not get right either) were all to avoid the main points in the opening post.

45 pages of posts and little actual discussion. But I am sure that is just happenstance.

[Charles]

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

So I ask again, what's really changed?

The fact that you fail to see that the main difference is that we no longer even believe you yourself believe it says it all. Thanks for proving the point.

[Charles]

45 pages of posts and little actual discussion. But I am sure that is just happenstance.

And the number of wrong and unsupported claims says it all. It was quite revealing yesterday to read Cow Poke's source and see it did not support his claims. So, even the excuses, as it certainly was, are based on false statements. The dishonesty is well documented in this thread.

[simplicio]

And the number of wrong and unsupported claims says it all. It was quite revealing yesterday to read Cow Poke's source and see it did not support his claims. So, even the excuses, as it certainly was, are based on false statements. The dishonesty is well documented in this thread.

Fea is most noted for his stance on Trump. So, like Galli (who wrote the Christianity Today editorial condemning support), the dubious claims and specious reasoning are applied in a character assassination. Galli's unforgivable sin was traced back to an essay in the book Still Evangelical? Ten insiders reconsider political, social, and theological meaning, Mark Labberton, ed.. Toss in the views on Russell Moore od the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission who committed the unforgivable sin of applying Christian ethics to a constirtyion perspective, and decided the Muslims have a right to build a mosques in America (and so is not really Christian).

clash with the political values of conservative evangelicals, and then you are no longer evangelical.

In case you are wondering, I have found nothing to suggest Fea is pro homosexual unions, rather he sees it as not a thing in the Christian view. quite similar to the example of the person with four or five marriages behind him and getting married in the church (in my opinion, that is not a Christian marriage, or even a natural marriage, because marriage is a union of two people that is "till death do us part")

Fea is anti abortion, except that he doubts the wisdom of overturning Roe v Wade, without affecting the reasons women want abortions. (My view: Overturning Roe would return the abortion question to the 50 states, so there will be 50 separate battles, and it will do nothing to address the reasons why women are drawn to seek abortions)

Fea is apparently not a second amendment type: https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...ea-imagine-if/ Fea notes the difference in response on gun deaths vs abortion deaths and notes a difference in response for the same phenomenon, needless deaths.

On race: Fea notes that evangelicals are not without sin, historically. Big surprise. He also notes that the experiential outlook of the black evangelical church has a basis in the faith. In other words, he agrees with CRT.

On Science: Fea sees no problem with science, or Christians entering into the field of science (or history!) G-d created, but he G-d did not explain how he did it in the first three chapters of Genesis.

In other words, Fea disagrees with the political aims of conservative American evangelicalism.

[Cow Poke]

Charles listed some points which have validity, namely an historian wrote on a topic of history, and noted the change of course in the ABS. That change in course coincided with his argument made elsewhere, that there was a shift in American evangelicalism. That historian is also a Christian.

Have I - ever even ONCE - questioned that Fea is a historian OR a Christian?

[Cow Poke]

I actually did show that you were wrong....

...in your mind, I'm sure you did, Charles. Good boy.

[Cow Poke]

And the number of wrong and unsupported claims ...

...beginning, of course, with your unsupported claim that Fea is, himself, an Evangelical.

[simplicio]

Have I - ever even ONCE - questioned that Fea is a historian OR a Christian?

Read my post again.