Evangelicals full of fear

[Mountain Man]

This statement: "In their minds, we all secretly agree with them that it's simply too ridiculous to take seriously, but that we consciously ignore the irrationality of it because we prefer a comforting lie to the truth."

Seems you must think you can read their minds when making such a statement. I see you don't want to own it though.

Because determining what someone is thinking can not be done through conversation, interaction, reading, and observation but requires supernatural abilities, am I right?

Good grief you're an idiot.

[Charles]

Because determining what someone is thinking can not be done through conversation, interaction, reading, and observation but requires supernatural abilities, am I right?

Good grief you're an idiot.

Perhaps the most interesting part is that now you claim:

Nah, in my experience, skeptics have never believed that Christians really believe the Bible[...]

Yesterday your claim was:

[...]

Skeptics before President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

Skeptics after President Trump: "Christians are morons for believing the Bible."

[...]

So, whatever the source for your statements about what skeptics are thinking about Christians it seems it is all contradictory. So whether it is mind reading or other observations you are basing it on, perhaps you should find a new method instead of making contradictory claims depending on what fits the particular situation.

Today you did not refer to what they were saying or what they were thinking. You refered to their "mind" making a broad brush general statement about what went on in their minds.

And, to add some extra fun it was a contradiction of what you claimed just yesterday in this very thread.

[JonathanL]

Perhaps the most interesting part is that now you claim:



Yesterday your claim was:



So, whatever the source for your statements about what skeptics are thinking about Christians it seems it is all contradictory. So whether it is mind reading or other observations you are basing it on, perhaps you should find a new method instead of making contradictory claims depending on what fits the particular situation.

Today you did not refer to what they were saying or what they were thinking. You refered to their "mind" making a broad brush general statement about what went on in their minds.

And, to add some extra fun it was a contradiction of what you claimed just yesterday in this very thread.

Here's an idea. What if...-no no, hear me out here-... What if someone can make two different generalized claims about the same group of people, claims that on the face of it seem to indicate a contradiction, because they assume the recipients will understand that he's not making an exhaustive claim about every single member of that group, but intends the claim to be understood in the sense of "many, but not all", or at the very least not in the sense of "every member of X"?

Of course, that would be the charitable, and rational way to read MM, which obviously is not what we're in the business of doing here.

[Charles]

Here's an idea. What if...-no no, hear me out here-... What if someone can make two different generalized claims about the same group of people, claims that on the face of it seem to indicate a contradiction, because they assume the recipients will understand that he's not making an exhaustive claim about every single member of that group, but intends the claim to be understood in the sense of "many, but not all", or at the very least not in the sense of "every member of X"?

Of course, that would be the charitable, and rational way to read MM, which obviously is not what we're in the business of doing here.

Charitable: yes, indeed!
Rational: no

[JonathanL]

Charitable: yes, indeed!
Rational: no

Actually, yes, it would be the rational way to read his words. In fact, it would be the natural and common sense way to interpret his words. What you're doing is using the woodenly literal interpretation way of reading that fundamentalists often get accused of using when reading the Bible. In fact, it's even worse than that, because you're unjustifiably inferring that he's talking about the same members of the skeptic community in each post.

[oxmixmudd]

Here's an idea. What if...-no no, hear me out here-... What if someone can make two different generalized claims about the same group of people, claims that on the face of it seem to indicate a contradiction, because they assume the recipients will understand that he's not making an exhaustive claim about every single member of that group, but intends the claim to be understood in the sense of "many, but not all", or at the very least not in the sense of "every member of X"?

Of course, that would be the charitable, and rational way to read MM, which obviously is not what we're in the business of doing here.

I have not noticed anyone (get it?) actually doing that here.

[JonathanL]

I have not noticed anyone (get it?) actually doing that here.

Have not noticed anyone doing what here? Claim that MM is contradicting himself by assuming that he is talking about the same members of the skeptic community in both of his posts? Because that's exactly what Charles did in #482.

[oxmixmudd]

Have not noticed anyone doing what here? Claim that MM is contradicting himself by assuming that he is talking about the same members of the skeptic community in both of his posts? Because that's exactly what Charles did in #482.

Sorry 'that' was 'giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt' in a conversation (which is what I interpreted your post to be a sarcastic lament for). Sorry I was not clearer.

[JonathanL]

Sorry 'that' was 'giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt' in a conversation (which is what I interpreted your post to be a sarcastic lament for). Sorry I was not clearer.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Charles]

Actually, yes, it would be the rational way to read his words. In fact, it would be the natural and common sense way to interpret his words. What you're doing is using the woodenly literal interpretation way of reading that fundamentalists often get accused of using when reading the Bible. In fact, it's even worse than that, because you're unjustifiably inferring that he's talking about the same members of the skeptic community in each post.

It is in the very same thread, in the very same discussion. In both cases he is talking in broad terms about "Skeptics". It is not my fault that he does not point to "some skektips". He is talking generally about skeptics, in the same thread in the same discussion. And your claim is it would be rational to assume he is not talking about the same. If that is your approach to a rational discussion you will be in serious problems since we would have to define terms all the time, conitnually make sure that what I mean by "skeptic", "God" or "rational" in this context is the same as what I meant yesterday.

The irony is that you have a apply an irrational and not very charitable interpretation of my statements in order to even allow for your own interpretation.

[JonathanL]

1) It is in the very same thread, in the very same discussion. 2) In both cases he is talking in broad terms about "Skeptics". 3) It is not my fault that he does not point to "some skektips". 4) He is talking generally about skeptics, in the same thread in the same discussion. 5) And your claim is it would be rational to assume he is not talking about the same. If that is your approach to a rational discussion you will be in serious problems since 6) we would have to define terms all the time, conitnually make sure that what I mean by "skeptic", "God" or "rational" in this context is the same as what I meant yesterday.

The irony is that you have a apply an irrational and not very charitable interpretation of my statements in order to even allow for your own interpretation.

1) Irrelevant

2) In BROAD terms, not EXHAUSTIVELY

3) He should not HAVE TO point to "some skeptics" because most people would naturally assume that he's not speaking in exhaustive terms about skeptics in either posts, but broadly, and not necessarily in an overlapping sense.

4) Again, irrelevant

5) Yes, it would be the rational way to understand his statements, because it's the way people write and speak ALL THE TIME.

6) No, we would not. There has been no need to do so up until now, and there's no need to do it from now on either.

Your last statement is interesting. Please explain how I would have to apply "an irrational and not very charitable interpretation" of your statements in order to allow for my own interpretation?

[NorrinRadd]

Any definition needs to include some and exclude others to be effective. Maybe evangelicalism has become so confused that evangelicals themselves no longer know what it means!

The Bebbington square is probably used more often than the 9 point Barna or the five point, seven point, etc. definitions of evangelical. But the one thing to note, is that too often the same person who appeals to Bebbington one moment will discard it the next over the political sphere's influence on evangelicals in America. Which is Fea's focus, as well as the reasons some evangelicals here reject Fea as an evangelical.

The prototype for an evangelical is the politically conservative evangelical, any other type is suspect. Russell Moore of the ERLC is the best example.

That seems to sort of intersect with the possibly related problem of the multiple senses of "conservative" -- theological, social, fiscal, political, possibly others. IMO, evangelicals are inherently conservative in the theological sense, but not necessarily in any of the others.

[simplicio]

That seems to sort of intersect with the possibly related problem of the multiple senses of "conservative" -- theological, social, fiscal, political, possibly others.

But we have the specific labels that modify conservative, we recognize the different categories of conservative with the differences between social conservative and fiscal conservative recognized.

IMO, evangelicals are inherently conservative in the theological sense, but not necessarily in any of the others.

So, Bebbington's rectangle is not a useful definition for what is and is not evangelical?. Theological conservatism at one time recognized segregation and prohibitions on miscegenation as divinely ordained, integration was recognized as a theological liberal idea which threatened the Body of Christ.

[Cow Poke]

1) Irrelevant

2) In BROAD terms, not EXHAUSTIVELY

3) He should not HAVE TO point to "some skeptics" because most people would naturally assume that he's not speaking in exhaustive terms about skeptics in either posts, but broadly, and not necessarily in an overlapping sense.

4) Again, irrelevant

5) Yes, it would be the rational way to understand his statements, because it's the way people write and speak ALL THE TIME.

6) No, we would not. There has been no need to do so up until now, and there's no need to do it from now on either.

Your last statement is interesting. Please explain how I would have to apply "an irrational and not very charitable interpretation" of your statements in order to allow for my own interpretation?

You hit the nail on the head with the wooden literal thing. Kinda reminds me when our kids were younger and they would ask...

kids: Can we go fishing Saturday Morning?
Me: Well, if it's not raining, and I don't have to work, and your mother doesn't have other projects for us, then MAYBE there's a possibility that we MIGHT go fishing, but I seriously doubt it.
kids: [saturday morning] are we going fishing this morning?
Me: Well, I got called into work, it's storming like crazy, there's a 90% chance of rain all day, so, probably not
kids: But YOU PROMISED!!!!

[Mountain Man]

You hit the nail on the head with the wooden literal thing. Kinda reminds me when our kids were younger and they would ask...

kids: Can we go fishing Saturday Morning?
Me: Well, if it's not raining, and I don't have to work, and your mother doesn't have other projects for us, then MAYBE there's a possibility that we MIGHT go fishing, but I seriously doubt it.
kids: [saturday morning] are we going fishing this morning?
Me: Well, I got called into work, it's storming like crazy, there's a 90% chance of rain all day, so, probably not
kids: But YOU PROMISED!!!!

Reminds me of the time my son called and asked if he could set off July 4th fireworks with his friend's family.

My response: "Only if an adult is present, only if you're not the one handling the fireworks, and only if you stay back a safe distance."

About 20-minutes later, I get a message from my wife saying, "I can't believe you told him he could set off fireworks with his friends. I just saw him holding a Roman candle."

Apparently what my son heard was, "Yes, you can absolutely do whatever you want."