Are we not allowed to use cites in the Pit? As an observer, I’d like to know which side is correct in their characterization of evangelical theology.
Here’s what wikipedia says:
**Renob **and others have said that is incorrect. Any evidence?
I never said they believed in infant baptism. But they do believe in some form of the doctrine of original sin (see here for an enlightening discussion). That theology that puts man outside of God’s grace until he or she accepts Christ as savior means that children go to hell. Again, I know a lot of evangelicals will deny this. They are misinformed. If they hold the view of salvation that no one is going to heaven unless they are saved, then there is no exception for those below the age of reason.
The fact that you are trying to debate this fundamental fact of evangelical and fundamentalist theology shows the weakness of your views. You seem to have obtained them solely on talking to family members, who may not be all that informed on the nuances of theology.
Of course, it should be noted that there really is no unified theology for fundamentalists or evangelicals. Essentially, each person decides his or her own theology. All I’m pointing out is that if one accepts one of the basic teachings that underlies the evangelical and fundamentalist movement, then the conclusion that unsaved children go to hell is ineveitable.
That’s rich, coming from you.
They are alarmed at the prospect of them receiving that torture and want to ensure they are saved from it.
I didn’t say they didn’t believe in Original Sin, I said they didn’t believe babies go to hell and they don’t. Read their own publicly stated doctrines, for fuck’s sake. You’re talking out of your ass. You may have some relatives who told you they think bablies go to Hell, but that just shows they are ignorant of their own denominational teachings.
No, dude, that is not the source of my knowledge. I only brought up family because I was accused of never having met any evangelicals.
That is not what they state in their own official doctrines. Inform yourself.
Really? I’m the only one in this squabble who knows what the hell I’m talking about.
And yet they still think those people will deserve what they get if they don’t convert. How is that not bigoted?
This is getting off-track and becoming a debate on the notion of original sin, but that’s fine with me.
Yes, I do think that evangelicals and others who believe that only believe so because they don’t want to accept the consequences of their believe in the innate sinful nature of man. I do not deny that many in the fundamentalist and evangelical world think babies are going to heaven. It’s just that they are either unaware of the implications of their other beliefs or choose to ignore it.
Going as far back as *The Fundamentals * (essentially the foundation of the modern fundamentalist movement and, by extension, the modern evangelical movement), there has been a belief in original sin (or man’s innately sinful nature, whatever you want to call it):
Man’s natural state is sinful. Man needs a savior to redeem him and that’s how he gets into heaven. The notion that people below the age of accountability are somehow going to heaven turn this idea on its head. Essentially what they are saying is that when people reach the age of accountability, they then are able to choose between good and evil. If you choose good (being saved) then you go to heaven, but if you choose evil you go to hell. It denies the notion that all are sinners and that sin is man’s natural state.
Again, evangelicals and fundamentalists can believe this, but they are not being consistent with their theology.
Then they don’t believe in original sin.
They view it as people suffering the consequences of their actions. How is that bigoted? And how is it anti-semitic? You have shifted the debate to say that these folks are bigoted. Your original charge was that they were anti-semitic. Are you ready to admit you were proven wrong when you used that smear?
Original Sin is neither here nor there. The fact remains that most evangelical denominations – in their own official doctrines – also believe in an age of accountability. You may believe those doctrines are illogical but that doesn’t mean they aren’t doctrine.
You actually think worse of evangelicals than I do. Even I don’t think they’re nuts enough to believe that babies deserve eternal Hell.
So, they are bigoted against Jews, but not anti-Semitic? I’m not sure there’s even room for a hair in there to split.
I already dismissed this canard in post #77: “And it has nothing to do with hatred of a specific ethnic group. If Jews are going to hell, they are going to hell the same way as anyone who isn’t a believer. Treating Jews the same as other people seems to be the opposite of anti-semitism.”
RE: Michael Medved…he is the only political talk show host I listen to. For the most part, I find such radio (both conservative and liberal) to be pretty boring, because no one ever wants to talk to a caller who disagrees with them. Medved is the only one who actually invites it (his “Disagreement Day” he does every week is my favorite…anyone can call in who disagrees with him on any subject, and tell him why). He doesn’t always come out ahead of the callers, but that’s why I like it. Whenever I’ve listened to Rush, I get the impression that the calls are screened for people who agree with him, or people who disagree but are so dumb that he can easily roll over them and make them sound like idiots. Oh, yeah, that’s entertaining radio, there, Rush. :rolleyes:
The other thing I like about Medved is that he has a strong libertarian viewpoint, and his opinions on various subjects are reflective of that. You don’t get “I’m a libertarian, but…” He even goes so far as to oppose “protected classes” of people. I’m not sure I agree with that, but I do appreciate his consistency of opinion.
I haven’t heard him talk about intelligent design, but I’m kind of surprised that he would advocate it. Is it more that he’s advocating the right to teach it in local school districts? That would probably be consistent with his liberatarian views.
Tell them that. I’m just telling what they state in their official doctrines, I’m not saying it’s logical.
It’s bigoted because the “action” they think warrants eternal torture is not believing the same thing they believe.
Not at all. Their beliefs are profoundly contemptuous, superior and hostile towards Jews. They actually think it’s a sin to be Jewish. How is that NOT antisemitic?
Well, something upon which we both agree.
No, the actions for which they are punished is sin.
For one, being anti-semitic is singling out the Jews for special hatred. That’s not the case here.
Two, they don’t think it’s a sin to be ethnically Jewish. They think that people who believe in Judaism are unsaved. They also think that people who believe in Mormonism (or Islam or Buddhism) are unsaved. Please tell me how that constitutes anti-semitism.
That would actually be contrary to Libertarian views. Libertarians do not support theocracy. They do not typically fight for the goernment’s (non-existent) “right” to teach religious doctrine as science in public schools.
I disagree. If the majority parents who live in a local school district wish for intelligent design to be taught as part of their local curriculum, it would be contrary to libertarian views for the government at some higher level to tell them that they can’t do it.
And the “sin” is not believing the same thing that they believe.
The KKK doesn’t just hate Jews. They hate anybody who isn’t white. Does that mean they aren’t anti-semitic?
Technically speaking, I grant that it’s anti-Judaic rather than anti-semitic. It’s religious bigotry, not racial. I don’t think that makes it any less bigoted, though.
The Constitution forbids the government from endorsing religion. Libertarians support the Establishment Clause. They do not believe that citizens have a “right” to force the State to take religious sides. The Libertarian view would be that parents have a right to teach their kids anything they want in private or home schools, but that the government has to stay out of it.
I think we are defining “libertarian” differently. Medved is, in his words, a “small l” libertarian, not a member of the “Libertarian” political party. My assumption would be that libertarians are against public schools in general, so perhaps Medved is talking about the right to teach intelligent design privately. (As I said, I’m just guessing here based on other things I know of him…I haven’t heard him discuss this particular topic.)
Libertarians generally don’t support the concept of public schools, so “theocracy” doesn’t even enter the equation wrt to education. Private schools are free to teach whatever the customers want.
Googling “Michael Medved” and “Intelligent Design” mostly provides links to this story. One can search the Discovery Institute’s own site & get this page on Mr Medved. Mostly, welcoming him aboard. Plus a few audio clips that I haven’t reviewed.
(Ooh–Medved’s move might hurt the cause of Intelligent Design? Let’s hope!)
I could find nothing about Medved’s “Libertarian” objections to teaching science in science class. Perhaps you’ve got a link?
In related news, our own Texas Freedom Network has gotten its hands on a lecture by the new Chairman of the Texas Education Board.
McLeroy’s previous attempt to reject science texts because they didn’t discuss the problems with evolution was a failure–although he was sponsored by Medved’s pals at the Discovery Institute. But the State Board of Education now has a religious conservative majority.
Because Texas is such a big state, its textbook standards affect other states. (Going off to re-up with the TFN right now!)
Back to the OP: Medved’s new job has more to do with his political opinions than his “scientific” beliefs. And the money…
If they don’t support public schools at all then how is it wrong to say they don’t support endorsing religious views in them? I said they support the right for parents to teach whatever they want privately and for the state to stay out of it. The idea that the state should get involved in any way in teaching religion (be it in public schools or elsewhere) is diametrically opposed to libertarian values, is it not?
ISTM that Medved was, at one time, a fairly reasonable conservative pundit. He does seem to have gone off the deep end recently, though. He’s well into O’Reilly territory with conspiracy theories about “leftist secularism” taking over society (or something along those lines). Now that he’s doing the jig with the ID crowd, I can only say :rolleyes: .
I’m perfectly fine with parents teaching their kids whatever they think should be taught (as long as it’s not physically harmful to them), but I can still just shake my head at the pseudo-scientific nutjobs who buy into ID. It’s actually worse than pseudo-science, if you ask me. I’d call it anti-science, since it ends inquiry. “God did it” kinda puts a damper on things.