Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:16 PM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,719
Et T Te Absolvo

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's the main reason I dislike the Tradition of Canonization. It's not completely undoable, but it still can venerate people who did evil, rather than realize that even those who were important to the Church are flawed humans who did bad things, ala our country's Founding Fathers and slavery.

If only they were alive to hear that !
  #52  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:17 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Except that, again, there are numerous references in Scripture to instances of the wealthy being unjust, and of the perils of wealth. And the book of Job makes it very clear that just because bad things happen to someone does not mean that they did something wrong, and Proverbs and Ecclesiastes make it very clear that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people all the time.
These people, like many/most/all christians, are not deriving their beliefs from the entirety of their scriptures. At some level they start selectively picking the parts of scripture that support their views, ignoring or rationalizing the counterexamples. This works even if the views are sourced from outside the scriptures entirely.
  #53  
Old 08-30-2017, 07:43 PM
amarinth amarinth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Evangelicalism became politically aware in the early 1970s as a reaction to the Supreme Court cases, that outlawed abortion bans, and prayer in schools. I grew up around many politically engaged evangelicals and those were the dominant issues. No one ever mentioned anything about race.
Then you weren't paying attention.

The opposition to abortion came well after Roe. In 1973, most Evangelical groups were neutral to or even for the decision. Opposition to abortion was a Catholic thing, not Protestant. Pro-life engagement was significantly later than the case.
  #54  
Old 08-30-2017, 08:00 PM
Mdcastle Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Pew exit poll numbers for the last four Presidential elections for "white born again/evangelical Christians" have them voting for the Dem nominee 21%, 24%, 21%, and 16%. We're still at about 1 in 5 of white evangelicals voting for Dems. They especially seemed to like Obama in 08 and dislike Clinton.

There's still a discussion. We're looking at a less than perfect correlation and mostly looking at it from a three way correlation - politically active, evangelical, and scoring high on that list of political traits. That certainly seems to hint at a complex interaction of multiple factors. That's without looking at the possibility that the cause is something external that drive both an affiliation with evangelical churches and those political positions. Something like people staying in the religion they were raised with, mixed with other cultural factors in the South where a lot of evangelicals are, might actually be causal of the correlation between attitudes and identifying as evangelical.

If we start off by stripping the nuance at the beginning it shapes the discussion up front. It makes it hard to put the nuance back in. It's been excluded from the answer requested. Emotionally loaded words like twistedness can also shape the issue. Consider two different ways to start on observations about a group that isn't clearly an outgroup on this board.

1) Looking at polling data, black men in the US seem to have lower median incomes, higher rates of violent crime convictions, and lower rates of college degree completion that the rest of the populace. Can anyone help me understand why?
2) Black men are poor, violent, and ignorant. What's wrong with black men?

The OP was pretty close in style to #2 for framing the problem. That makes getting a deeper understanding, like asked for in #1, more difficult.
I believe the term around here is "poisoning the well". The way the OP framed it is sounds like there's no interest in why Evangelicals believe the whole Bible including the creation story and the part about being created in your mother's womb, or why being predominantly Middle class they'd vote for someone who at least pretended to feel their pain and bring their job back that Hillary's husband sent to Mexico. Just more ammunition to support a preconceived notion that Evangelicals are terrible.
  #55  
Old 08-30-2017, 09:33 PM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
These people, like many/most/all christians, are not deriving their beliefs from the entirety of their scriptures. At some level they start selectively picking the parts of scripture that support their views, ignoring or rationalizing the counterexamples. This works even if the views are sourced from outside the scriptures entirely.


It would get physically uncomfortable for a great many people if Christians --- or Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. etc. --- started taking every injunction as inerrant.
  #56  
Old 08-31-2017, 07:40 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Evangelicalism became politically aware in the early 1970s as a reaction to the Supreme Court cases, that outlawed abortion bans, and prayer in schools. I grew up around many politically engaged evangelicals and those were the dominant issues. No one ever mentioned anything about race.
Then you weren't paying attention.

The opposition to abortion came well after Roe. In 1973, most Evangelical groups were neutral to or even for the decision. Opposition to abortion was a Catholic thing, not Protestant. Pro-life engagement was significantly later than the case.
I suspect that you were unduly influenced by people in your immediate area.
Opposition to abortion began long before Roe v Wade as various states considered amending their laws to permit it. While the Catholic church was the largest and loudest group on that side of the discussion, Evangelical Protestants were strongly represented. Your use the the word "Protestant" without a modifier treats all Protestant denominations as though they were in lock-step on all issues. This was not the case. The more conservative on the Evangelical denominations have always opposed abortion.

Similarly, the earliest politicization among the Evangelicals began with the issue of administration-led school prayer in the 1960s.

= = =

I believe that it was true that Evangelicals became more organized, politically, in the 1970s. However, that was the point where abortion and school busing were both addressed by SCOTUS and they lumped those with school prayer, (and, for some reason, Creationism), into their rallying cries.

(I know why they promote Creationism, but they were politically quiet on the subject in the 1950a and 1960.)
  #57  
Old 08-31-2017, 08:56 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I suspect that you were unduly influenced by people in your immediate area.
Opposition to abortion began long before Roe v Wade as various states considered amending their laws to permit it. While the Catholic church was the largest and loudest group on that side of the discussion, Evangelical Protestants were strongly represented. Your use the the word "Protestant" without a modifier treats all Protestant denominations as though they were in lock-step on all issues. This was not the case. The more conservative on the Evangelical denominations have always opposed abortion.
Jonathan Dudley (CNN):
Quote:
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
Randall Ballmer, chair of the Dartmouth religion department:
Quote:
Iowa, in fact, served as the proving ground for abortion as a political issue. Until 1978, evangelicals in Iowa were overwhelmingly indifferent about abortion as a political matter. Even after the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, most evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue.” The Iowa race for U.S. Senate in 1978 pitted Dick Clark, the incumbent Democrat, against a Republican challenger, Roger Jepsen. All of the polling and the pundits viewed the election an easy win for Clark, who had walked across the state six years earlier in his successful effort to unseat Republican Jack Miller. In the final weekend of the 1978 campaign, however, pro-lifers (predominantly Catholic) leafleted church parking lots all over the state. Two days later, in an election with a very low turnout, Jepsen narrowly defeated Clark, thereby persuading Paul Weyrich and other architects of the Religious Right that abortion would work for them as a political issue.
Certainly some evangelicals were anti-abortion all along. But the evangelical establishment, such as it was, was pro-choice in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there's no indication that that drew substantial opposition from the people in the pews at the time. Antiabortion didn't become a widespread stance among evangelicals until the late 1970s, and crystallized as the party line in the early 1980s.

As Christian blogger Fred "Slacktivist" Clark points out here, the switch was so recent at that point that when Christian publisher InterVarsity Press published a book in 1984 that took the 1970 party line on abortion as a given, the outraged reaction of evangelicals caught them completely by surprise.
  #58  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:16 AM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
So, why do evangelicals tend to oppose abortion being legal? The combination of quotes above from Waltke does make sense; if killing human life = capital punishment and killing fetus /= capital punishment then fetus /= human life.


Also, why the emphasis on Paul?
  #59  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:26 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
One county in Virginia shut down its entire public school system for five years rather than comply with federal law. White kids were still educated at taxpayer expense at private white schools. Black kids were out of luck.
Rebranded today as the voucher system.
  #60  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:18 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Drake View Post
It would get physically uncomfortable for a great many people if Christians --- or Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. etc. --- started taking every injunction as inerrant.
They don't take every injunction as inerrant.

They take the injunctions that they like as inerrant.
  #61  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:36 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
So, why do evangelicals tend to oppose abortion being legal?
Because, as tomndebb mentions, opposition to abortion in the Christian church far predates Roe v. Wade. There are documents from the second century AD unambiguously condemning abortion, as well as from Protestant leaders after the Reformation.
Quote:
Also, why the emphasis on Paul?
Because Jesus never mentioned abortion, or homosexuality for that matter. If one wants to use the Bible as a source of moral authority, then it makes sense to rely on the parts that mention a topic.

Regards,
Shodan
  #62  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:53 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because, as tomndebb mentions, opposition to abortion in the Christian church far predates Roe v. Wade.
And I posted a rebuttal to tomndebb's post, which means it's a prebuttal to your post.
  #63  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:00 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
So, why do evangelicals tend to oppose abortion being legal? The combination of quotes above from Waltke does make sense; if killing human life = capital punishment and killing fetus /= capital punishment then fetus /= human life.
Yes but Waltke is probably an outlier. Plenty of evangelicals believe that a fetus has a soul and is a human life.
  #64  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:28 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And I posted a rebuttal to tomndebb's post, which means it's a prebuttal to your post.
It wasn't a very strong prebuttal, IMO. The opinion of one academic does not establish what US evangelicals thought - I would prefer a poll or something like that. And I don't see how a Senator winning a close race based on his anti-abortion stance shows that American evangelicals viewed abortion with indifference.

Regards,
Shodan
  #65  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:18 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It wasn't a very strong prebuttal, IMO.
If it wasn't very strong, it should have been easy for you to demolish it.
Quote:
The opinion of one academic does not establish what US evangelicals thought - I would prefer a poll or something like that.
You're right - the official stance of the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't have any relation to what US evangelicals think. Ditto what's in Christianity Today.

With respect to the latter, it isn't so much that the content of CT = what evangelicals think, but rather that CT reliably stays within the bounds of what the evangelical community regards as acceptable discourse.

IOW, this has nothing to do with the opinions of the academics in question, but the facts they cite, and their connection to this discussion. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.
Quote:
And I don't see how a Senator winning a close race based on his anti-abortion stance shows that American evangelicals viewed abortion with indifference.
That isn't what it shows. Did you read? (SATSQ: No.)
  #66  
Old 08-31-2017, 04:14 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
DinoR, since you seem to have some knowledge on the evangelical PoV, could you present the more charitable version of it which you'd like to be more visible?

I have no difficulty admitting that one can be evangelical without subscribing to all/most of what I wrote in the OP yet it still leaves me curious about 1) what that better version of evangelicalism is 2) What might account the rest of the movement aside from common human failings
  #67  
Old 08-31-2017, 04:33 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If it wasn't very strong, it should have been easy for you to demolish it.You're right - the official stance of the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't have any relation to what US evangelicals think. Ditto what's in Christianity Today.

With respect to the latter, it isn't so much that the content of CT = what evangelicals think, but rather that CT reliably stays within the bounds of what the evangelical community regards as acceptable discourse.

IOW, this has nothing to do with the opinions of the academics in question, but the facts they cite, and their connection to this discussion. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. That isn't what it shows. Did you read? (SATSQ: No.)
Christianity Today is not a party line magazine, it publishes different perspectives within the Christian community. It is not surprising that a college professor had a relatively more liberal take on abortion. That does not mean that the professor spoke for the evangelical movement. For instance, right after Roe v Wade, Christianity Today had a editorial that said apocalypticly "Christians should accustom themselves to the thought that the American state no longer supports, in any meaningful sense, the laws of God, and prepare themselves spiritually for the prospect that it may one day formally repudiate them and turn against those who seek to live by them."
Francis Schaeffer's book "How should we then live" is kind of the founding text for evangelicals as a political movement. It says abortion is against Christianity and Roe v Wade is symptomatic of the assault of truth and standards that would inevitably lead to infanticide and euthanasia if not stopped. He said Christians were morally obligated to organize and vote to have it overturned.
  #68  
Old 08-31-2017, 04:37 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Jonathan Dudley (CNN):

Randall Ballmer, chair of the Dartmouth religion department:
Certainly some evangelicals were anti-abortion all along. But the evangelical establishment, such as it was, was pro-choice in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there's no indication that that drew substantial opposition from the people in the pews at the time. Antiabortion didn't become a widespread stance among evangelicals until the late 1970s, and crystallized as the party line in the early 1980s.

As Christian blogger Fred "Slacktivist" Clark points out here, the switch was so recent at that point that when Christian publisher InterVarsity Press published a book in 1984 that took the 1970 party line on abortion as a given, the outraged reaction of evangelicals caught them completely by surprise.
Both the Southern Baptists and the Intervarsity book took the position that abortion should be outlawed and only allowed in case of rape, incest, gross deformity, or the mother's health. That is a pro-life position, it may be more moderate than most of us currently have, but that is totally different than the abortion on demand framework of Roe v Wade.
  #69  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:18 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And I posted a rebuttal to tomndebb's post, which means it's a prebuttal to your post.
You posted a couple of citations indicating that the issue of abortion was not universally consistent among Evangelicals in the 1960s. However, I never claimed that it was a universal position. I only noted that it was held by more people than just Catholics and your "rebuttal" does nothing to disprove my statements. I do not claim that there was no shift in views--just as the issue of Creationism changed from the 1960s (when it was generally accepted, even among many Evangelicals), but the notion that the Evangelical community in its entirety suddenly reversed its views to adopt a papist position as a political one needs more support than that of one blogger.
  #70  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:41 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You're right - the official stance of the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't have any relation to what US evangelicals think. Ditto what's in Christianity Today.
I didn't say it had no relation.

As an ELCA Lutheran, I am uncomfortably familiar with the phenomenon of the upper echelon of the church hierarchy believing and pushing social policies that are quite different from what the laity thinks as a whole.
Quote:
IOW, this has nothing to do with the opinions of the academics in question, but the facts they cite, and their connection to this discussion.
AFAICT the facts being discussed are what US evangelicals thought about abortion circa Roe v. Wade, and that they were indifferent hasn't been factually established.

Regards,
Shodan
  #71  
Old 09-01-2017, 07:48 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Religion is not a democracy. Of course the laity are likely to want to the church to be closer to the secular world. The fact that so many mainstream churches are giving in is why so many true believers are seeking guidance elsewhere. And I can't blame them, even as an atheist. What is the purpose of a religion if it just reflects society's morals?
  #72  
Old 09-01-2017, 10:03 AM
Evan Drake Evan Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,719
The Church always has been a mirror, after the initial proselytizing. The RC Church generally trims it's political views to whichever is presently dominant. Amongst the oligarchs, an oligarch; amongst the Kings, a supporter of the throne; amongst the moderns, Democracy all the way, Baby !

Not applicable to the 'Brights', the Strong Atheist regimes like North Korea --- naturalich.




However, Church hierarchies are more likely to urge reconcilement to the New and Shiny than are their staid old parishioners. They went to college too.
  #73  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:02 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
Interesting short article: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017...eve-in-nothing
TLDR: In 2011, 30% of white evangelicals thought private immoral conduct did not prevent officials from fulfilling their public duties. In 2016, it was 72%. The overall tendency among white evangelicals is to tribally support whatever the GOP leader says or does, everything they say about principles and morality is a squid squirting ink.

As I said, this is an overall tendency, if any evangelicals who aren't like that would like to step in and talk about the better side of US white evangelicalism or go on about the other 5/6, it would be nice to hear about it.
  #74  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:16 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Interesting short article: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017...eve-in-nothing
TLDR: In 2011, 30% of white evangelicals thought private immoral conduct did not prevent officials from fulfilling their public duties. In 2016, it was 72%. The overall tendency among white evangelicals is to tribally support whatever the GOP leader says or does, everything they say about principles and morality is a squid squirting ink.

As I said, this is an overall tendency, if any evangelicals who aren't like that would like to step in and talk about the better side of US white evangelicalism or go on about the other 5/6, it would be nice to hear about it.
Except they're the ones who might actually not judge lest ye be judged and don't throw stones and are aware of the beam in their eye.
  #75  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:19 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Interesting short article: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017...eve-in-nothing
TLDR: In 2011, 30% of white evangelicals thought private immoral conduct did not prevent officials from fulfilling their public duties. In 2016, it was 72%. The overall tendency among white evangelicals is to tribally support whatever the GOP leader says or does, everything they say about principles and morality is a squid squirting ink.

As I said, this is an overall tendency, if any evangelicals who aren't like that would like to step in and talk about the better side of US white evangelicalism or go on about the other 5/6, it would be nice to hear about it.
There is a difference between cultural evangelicals and actual evangelicals. Cultural evangelicals are people whose families go to church and actual evangelicals actually go to church. The cultural conservatives are more likely to be Trump supporters and to be more interested in economic issues and immigration than social issues.
  #76  
Old 09-19-2017, 03:23 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
So, we hardly ever hear from the better part of US white evangelicalism because they're just too nice and humble? If so, they better accept that their branch of religion will become associated with the worse part of it. Otherwise,

TESTIFY!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOxVjbGvUpI

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 09-19-2017 at 03:23 PM.
  #77  
Old 09-03-2018, 08:26 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
I've heard the Roman Catholic Church described as a continuation of the Roman empire through soft power. Could white Evangelical Christianity (hereby, "WEC") be a continuation of the CSA? It would explain the nasty, xenophobic, domineering, tribal, pre-modern aspects of it.

I'm not sure about the term "pre-modern". When we hear some WEC leader talk about tornados being divine punishment for homosexuality, we find it ridiculous but that's little different than medieval peasants thinking the plague was divine punishment, farmers in antiquity making offerings at the temple to get a good harvest or hunter-gatherers ritually sacrificing an animal to ensure a bountiful hunt. The god they talk about must be understood as a tribal god too, a protector of WASPs in the same way that YHVH was a protector of the Jews; born again general Boykin is a good example:
"the article revealed Boykin giving a speech about hunting down Osman Atto in Mogadishu: "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.""
  #78  
Old 09-03-2018, 08:40 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,660
Religious fundamentalism is correlated with authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is the real problem, and religious fundamentalism tends to be the spiritual belief of authoritarians.

Authoritarians in the middle east become Islamic jihadists. In the US they become right wing christians.

But christianity itself isn't the problem. Jimmy Carter is a christian. So was Mr. Rogers. The problem is right wing authoritarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-...thoritarianism

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...7582ijpr0601_5
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #79  
Old 09-03-2018, 10:09 PM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
The evangelical Christians were partially sincere folks who wanted simple but rock-solid unquestionable answers they could have absolute faith in.
That's nice. Why did they pick the ugliest?
  #80  
Old 09-03-2018, 10:44 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
To those familiar with them, is the Prosperity Gospel similar to The Secret/law of attraction*? I have only a faint acquaintance with either but both seem to say something along the lines of: "Believe it strongly enough and your dreams (especially of being rich) will come true as a direct effect of that belief". Have I got it right?


* This thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(book) Now that I read the Wiki entry, the New Age author quotes the Bible in her 3 step process of 1) Ask in prayer 2) believe 3) receive
Only in a hyper simplistic manner. The "god" most people who use The Secret pray to isn't the Judeo Christian god by any stretch of the imagination, but it's very hard for Americans to hear "god" and think of anything else. It's a lot more similar to the Deist god, or even a pantheistic "the universe" as god. And really, when you get down to it, what it's really saying is that you should focus your mind on your goal, making it a reverberating priority that manifests in all of your thought patterns. The easiest way to do that is to hijack the worship circuitry and overhaul it for your purposes.

The prosperity gospel is almost the exact opposite. Where The Secret says that your desire and willpower is ultimately what determines where you end up, which is extremely individualistic and empowering, the Prosperity Gospel says obey, sacrifice unto god, or suffer. It's a far cry of a difference, and speaks to the problems inherent with a lot of evangelical interpretations of biblical teachings (almost all of the difference between them and other protestant branches are that they ignore the potentially self empowering interpretations and amp up the "obey or burn" side up to fantastical extremes).
  #81  
Old 09-03-2018, 11:34 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,921
The problem isn't limited to US Evangelical Christianity (neither term is limiting), and it doesn't include all Christians who call themselves "evangelical" any more than it includes all religious people. If I ever come up with a more precise handle I'll let you know, though.

The question I'd ask is why in the US the very sick combination of
* conmen who act at the macro level rather than moron-by-moron,
* control-obsessed bigots who paint the world in tones of "you're totally with me or I'm against you",
* and easily-conned or cowed people
has (a) gelled and (b) become identified with that particular religious group.

Perhaps part of the answer is in looking at where do those same people congregate elsewhere. And, in places where those tend to congregate elsewhere, do they also get attracted by groups calling themselves "evangelical churches"? For example, those 9 guys who recently caused a panic in a subway in Valencia (Spain) by yelling "you're all going to die", "you're all going to burn", "this place stinks of alcohol and sin" were evangelicals from Germany, hellbent on converting Spain because them Catholics aren't Christians and bikinis are the devil's tools (very bad at marketing, too, as the stunt ended with them in jail awaiting trial). Where would you normally have expected to find that kind of asshole, in Germany?

I can tell you that Spanish evangélicos don't do that kind of thing; our Iglesia Evangélica (singular) is a Roma-originated mixture of Lutheran structures with Catholic symbolism, and the other iglesias evangélicas are imports from Latin America with long speeches and a tendency to name their children Cristian: none of them feel the need to yell "you're all going to die" at the neighbors. As for where you'd look for people like that? The noisy ones, in radical soccer fan clubs and radical political groups; the mass-conmen, trying with better or worse success to climb political and corporate structures; and the sheep, following anybody who speaks in tones of authority but staying very far from the noisy ones.

Last edited by Nava; 09-03-2018 at 11:39 PM.
  #82  
Old 09-04-2018, 06:57 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,886
Quote:
Perhaps part of the answer is in looking at where do those same people congregate elsewhere
That would be an interesting exercise. Off the top of my head, what about Russia? One gets the impression that much of the Orthodox leadership tends to similarly authoritarian attitudes and daft conspiracy theories, and lends a lot of credence to Putin and his control systems, notwithstanding all that might be said about him and his oligarchs.

In France, there are Catholic equivalents (Protestants hardly figure politically), but the erstwhile association with anti-democratic/republican (in the European rather than US sense) ideologies seems much less in evidence; though Islamophobia has become a proxy for much broader racial prejudices - it is usually couched in terms of defending official state secularism rather than prioritising the ideas and status of the Church. A similar trick is often employed by the equivalent sort of political movements in the Netherlands and the UK - often, it can be couched in terms of liberal acceptance of homosexuality and women's rights, for example. The Bible and significant religious organisations just aren't in evidence as part of those movements. Moreover, such movements tend to have their own political parties; capturing one of the major existing parties is either impracticable or just not taken to be the way to success for them.

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 09-04-2018 at 06:58 AM.
  #83  
Old 09-04-2018, 10:10 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 50,125
Because they know they are ordained by God, and everything they believe i the absolute truth. People who confuse beliefs with facts are extremely dangerous people. And they all know there is a god and only their religion is right.

And one of my beliefs is that most of the rah-rah's know that the Straight White Christian Men should be running everything because they are better than everyone else.
  #84  
Old 09-04-2018, 10:20 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
most of the rah-rah's know that the Straight White Christian Men should be running everything because they are better than everyone else.
Not quite that, but because God has ordained that men be the leaders of their families and in life. It isn't just the evangelicals who are responsible for institutional misogyny; they seem to have inherited it from the Catholics and Mormons. The white part is implicit in the European and European-American origins of even mainstream Christianity, and was formerly explicit for the Mormons.
  #85  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:09 PM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not quite that, but because God has ordained that men be the leaders of their families and in life. ...
I would call that a distinction without a difference.

I think most people would agree that Middle Eastern monotheism is not very good for women and those in the defined under classes, but US Evangelicals are surprisingly fanatical. They manage to redefine one of the basic foundations of the country as its exact opposite, religious freedom means freedom to force others to adhere to one's own religious beliefs.
  #86  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:25 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
I would call that a distinction without a difference.
So would I. But I'd go further and say it's using a claim about God's will to relieve oneself of responsibility for one's own hatreds. Why, it even makes those hatreds required!
  #87  
Old 09-04-2018, 04:32 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 50,125
Yes, most of them are anti-abortion and pro-adoption, until you put the word "gay" in front of the latter. Then it's "child abuse."
  #88  
Old 09-04-2018, 09:58 PM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Yes, most of them are anti-abortion and pro-adoption, until you put the word "gay" in front of the latter. Then it's "child abuse."
And I don't care about their opinions on abortion, adoption, private prisons, or Colin Kaepernick, I just want them to stop trying to legislate them.
  #89  
Old 09-05-2018, 08:04 AM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
I would call that a distinction without a difference.

I think most people would agree that Middle Eastern monotheism is not very good for women and those in the defined under classes, but US Evangelicals are surprisingly fanatical. They manage to redefine one of the basic foundations of the country as its exact opposite, religious freedom means freedom to force others to adhere to one's own religious beliefs.
Well, the Puritans would heartily agree with them. That is exactly what they meant by religious freedom.
  #90  
Old 09-05-2018, 09:29 AM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
There is a difference between cultural evangelicals and actual evangelicals. Cultural evangelicals are people whose families go to church and actual evangelicals actually go to church. The cultural conservatives are more likely to be Trump supporters and to be more interested in economic issues and immigration than social issues.
No true evangelicals? No true Scotsman!
  #91  
Old 09-05-2018, 08:50 PM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Well, the Puritans would heartily agree with them. That is exactly what they meant by religious freedom.
They did not draft the constitution
  #92  
Old 09-06-2018, 06:34 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,007
2017 comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Interesting short article: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017...eve-in-nothing
TLDR: In 2011, 30% of white evangelicals thought private immoral conduct did not prevent officials from fulfilling their public duties. In 2016, it was 72%. The overall tendency among white evangelicals is to tribally support whatever the GOP leader says or does, everything they say about principles and morality is a squid squirting ink.

As I said, this is an overall tendency, if any evangelicals who aren't like that would like to step in and talk about the better side of US white evangelicalism or go on about the other 5/6, it would be nice to hear about it.
Interesting thread. Nava makes a good point: we really don't understand this phenomenon if we don't know why it happened in the US, but not in other high income countries.


Here's some info consistent with the above quote. Over at 538, they are working on their election model. They find that non-evangelical whites are the key swing voters.
As a general principle, the swingiest districts tend to be those with lots of white voters who do not identify as evangelical Christians. (By contrast, white evangelical voters are overwhelmingly Republican, while nonwhite voters — with a few exceptions like Cuban-Americans in South Florida; note the presence of Florida’s 25th and 26th districts in the top 10 — are overwhelmingly Democratic.) These voters are plentiful in the Northeast, and in the Upper Midwest, where they were vital to President Trump winning states such as Ohio and districts such as Maine’s 2nd Congressional District.
It's been noted that movement conservatism is to some extent a grift insofar as Infowars is a front for snakeoil vitamin supplements, overpriced gold coins are endorsed by multiple RW celebrities, and donating to conservatives tends to fill your mailbox full of investment scams (the oil field in the placenta) while donating to liberals fills your mailbox with... more appeals to liberal and charitable causes. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con

What I'm wondering is what sub-profile of conservatives are most susceptible to ripoffs. Just trying to get a handle on the OP from another angle.
  #93  
Old 09-06-2018, 09:28 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
Older, uneducated, incurious, provincial?


How did Antebellum slave holders get the non-slave owning majority of Southern whites to fight? From what I've read, it seems to have been based on the idea that they (Southern WASPs) were under attack and had to rally together to save their way of life and tribe.

From the beginning of the Civil Rights era, there was an alliance between the "business wing" composed rich or rich wanna-bes and the "social wing" rural whites against the federal government, blacks/women/gay civil rights and the welfare state.

For decades, the business wing used fear, xenophobia and conspiracy theories to enlist social wing members as foot soldiers but the Tea Party seems to have been an awakening of the social wing; They realized they could seize most of the power within the GOP.
  #94  
Old 09-06-2018, 10:49 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by j666 View Post
They did not draft the constitution
Luckily for us. But the story I learned in school was about the Pilgrims and Puritans fleeing religious oppression. What I didn't learn was about their religious oppression. Except marginally about the founding of Rhode Island.
  #95  
Old 09-07-2018, 12:16 AM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
What I'm wondering is what sub-profile of conservatives are most susceptible to ripoffs. Just trying to get a handle on the OP from another angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Older, uneducated, incurious, provincial?
I did a little digging. Scammers tend to favor the elderly. This study investigated a sample of elderly folk without dementia. They found that the following factors were related to scam susceptibility:

1) A diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment.
2) Fewer years of education
3) higher age.

Interestingly, gender was insignificant.

Over Hispanics and blacks were found to be more susceptible to fraud. But after controlling for age, level of education, and "degree of comfort with one’s debt" race became insignificant. Those saying they have "More debt than they can comfortably handle" are more likely to be victims of fraud. Interestingly, for the types of fraud investigated in the survey, those over 65 were less likely to be victims. Gender was still insignificant.

tl;dr: Data is contradictory. Aside from education, I'm not seeing a clean story popping out. More research necessary.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 09-07-2018 at 12:17 AM.
  #96  
Old 09-07-2018, 01:13 AM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
It's been noted that movement conservatism is to some extent a grift insofar as Infowars is a front for snakeoil vitamin supplements, overpriced gold coins are endorsed by multiple RW celebrities, and donating to conservatives tends to fill your mailbox full of investment scams (the oil field in the placenta) while donating to liberals fills your mailbox with... more appeals to liberal and charitable causes. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
Thanks for the link. It made me think of this analysis of GOOP: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/m...-wellness.html

as well as the link between Alex Jones and Logan Paul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY45PzpdDM0&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlA1TEF2r4c&t=0s


tl;dr: say dumb shit to attract attention, convert some of it into followers and sales, isolate your followers from the rest of society in a clique/cult-like way by making them think they have access to something special and are unfairly treated by the majority of people who don't buy the dumb shit you say to attract attention.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 09-07-2018 at 01:15 AM.
  #97  
Old 09-07-2018, 01:48 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Those saying they have "More debt than they can comfortably handle" are more likely to be victims of fraud.
Makes sense, to me both point at "bad impulse control and/or bad analytical skills".
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #98  
Old 09-07-2018, 07:02 AM
j666 j666 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Luckily for us. But the story I learned in school was about the Pilgrims and Puritans fleeing religious oppression. What I didn't learn was about their religious oppression. Except marginally about the founding of Rhode Island.
I did, possibly because I grew up in the area, or we might have had better text books.
That whole business in Salem was a clue, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Makes sense, to me both point at "bad impulse control and/or bad analytical skills".
Bad luck can cause financial insecurity and a willingness to take greater risks to get out from under.
  #99  
Old 09-07-2018, 10:12 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 50,125
Also, they cite the Bible for everything. It's not their opinion, it says so in the Bible, so nobody can dispute it.

Why are you against gay marriage.I
I'm not against gay marriage, the Bible is.

Why are you anti-abortion?
I'm not anti-abortion, the Bible is.

On and on and on and on.
  #100  
Old 09-07-2018, 10:36 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 4,546
I was amused to read in another thread Nava reporting that Spanish newspapers have been publishing articles to explain to their readers such concepts as Intelligent Design, Young Earth Theory, and Inerrant Bible.
__________________
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. ITMFA
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017