Evangelicals full of fear

[NorrinRadd]

FTR, I was not aware of, and do not acknowledge, the "big E" and "little e" distinction. It's silly and confusing.

Roger Olsen (and probably others) has suggested that "evangelical" may no longer be a useful term. He may have a point, but ISTM there does need to be *some* term for this branch of Christianity. This definition seems reasonable to me.

[Cow Poke]

Read my post again.

You seem to have this maniacal obsession to think that, for example, I don't believe MLK is (was) a Christian --- that kind of thing... you have brought that up a number of times, like it's the closing argument in some big trial. And you seem to wrongly conflate 'Christian' with 'Evangelical'. I really don't believe you're playing with a full deck.

[simplicio]

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

Okay? can you explain that statement? Because everytime someone tries to interpret that statement, you dive one way or dodge the other direction. You are relying on your own ambiguity.

[Cow Poke]

FTR, I was not aware of, and do not acknowledge, the "big E" and "little e" distinction. It's silly and confusing.

Roger Olsen (and probably others) has suggested that "evangelical" may no longer be a useful term. He may have a point, but ISTM there does need to be *some* term for this branch of Christianity. This definition seems reasonable to me.

What I'm finding out is that "Evangelical" means different things to different people. I don't think we're going to agree on a definition, because even part of the religious community sees it as a pejorative.

I think Barna does the best at defining it, but that definition seems to be continually ignored.

[Cow Poke]

Okay? can you explain that statement?

I can, and I have.

Because everytime someone tries to interpret that statement, you dive one way or dodge the other direction.

A) Barna.
2) You're full of crap.

You are relying on your own ambiguity.

There most certainly can be ambiguity in the term, which I have acknowledged, and which is why I brought up Barna. Have you even addressed THAT topic?

[simplicio]

You seem to have this maniacal obsession to think that, for example, I don't believe MLK is (was) a Christian --- that kind of thing... you have brought that up a number of times, like it's the closing argument in some big trial. And you seem to wrongly conflate 'Christian' with 'Evangelical'. I really don't believe you're playing with a full deck.

But how did you or others respond in that thread asking if MLK was a bible Christian, or on the threads about those Christians who emphasize the experiential aspects over the individual aspects? (i.e. CRT)

Where did I conflate evangelical with Christian? I used the word Christian that sentence because of the way evangelical is used in this thread to obscure discussion and ideas.

[Cow Poke]

But how did you or others respond in that thread asking if MLK was a bible Christian....

This is really old -- if you ask a question PAY ATTENTION WHEN SOMEBODY ANSWERS, or just keep your mouth shut. It's like your psycho or something, repeating the same question over and over and ignoring the answers.

[mossrose]

This is really old -- if you ask a question PAY ATTENTION WHEN SOMEBODY ANSWERS, or just keep your mouth shut. It's like your psycho or something, repeating the same question over and over and ignoring the answers.

You're.

[Cow Poke]

You're.

Wow --- that's my 'hundred year flood plan' error, and you caught it!

[Mountain Man]

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.

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

[Charles]

FTR, I was not aware of, and do not acknowledge, the "big E" and "little e" distinction. It's silly and confusing.

Roger Olsen (and probably others) has suggested that "evangelical" may no longer be a useful term. He may have a point, but ISTM there does need to be *some* term for this branch of Christianity. This definition seems reasonable to me.

To talk about "the distinction" is even misleading in itself since you will find different descriptions of when to use "E" depending on who you ask. Some use "E" for all instances where other would have a distinction (that would differ from the distinction of others) and thus the sole idea that you can claim a particular use of "Evangelical" is wrong is - like you said - silly and confusing.

[simplicio]

FTR, I was not aware of, and do not acknowledge, the "big E" and "little e" distinction. It's silly and confusing.

Roger Olsen (and probably others) has suggested that "evangelical" may no longer be a useful term. He may have a point, but ISTM there does need to be *some* term for this branch of Christianity. This definition seems reasonable to me.

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.

[Charles]

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

So now you read their minds? A biased mind reader, I would say.

But it as always convenient to hold others in such low regard if you want to justify a low standard for yourself.

[Mountain Man]

So now you read their minds?

No, dumbass. I said, "In my experience." Whatever gave you the idea that I was referring to clairvoyance?

[Charles]

No, dumbass. I said, "In my experience." Whatever gave you the idea that I was referring to clairvoyance?

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.