Quote:

---

Franklin Graham does a lot of good with Samaritan's Purse and I think the others do also.

---

I don't think Jesus is one to accept a list of your good things to gloss over one's bad things. In fact, with his illustrations involving salt, I think he sends the opposite message.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Franklin Graham does a lot of good with Samaritan's Purse and I think the others do also.

---

I don't think Jesus is one to accept a list of your good things to gloss over one's bad things. In fact, with his illustrations involving salt, I think he sends the opposite message.

---

Disagree. Once we are justified Christ accepts faults and all.

dermdoc said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Franklin Graham does a lot of good with Samaritan's Purse and I think the others do also.

---

I don't think Jesus is one to accept a list of your good things to gloss over one's bad things. In fact, with his illustrations involving salt, I think he sends the opposite message.

---

Disagree. Once we are justified Christ accepts faults and all.

---

LGBT affirming now?

PacifistAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Franklin Graham does a lot of good with Samaritan's Purse and I think the others do also.

---

I don't think Jesus is one to accept a list of your good things to gloss over one's bad things. In fact, with his illustrations involving salt, I think he sends the opposite message.

---

Disagree. Once we are justified Christ accepts faults and all.

---

LGBT affirming now?

---

Would say loving but not affirming.

PacifistAg said:

---

Yeah, I think it's really only something you see at churches that are more aligned w/ charlatans like Jeffress and Falwell. I do think you're more likely to see it within Baptist churches, in my experience, but outside of that, I think it's much more difficult to find.

---

I attend a very large church in Alabama every week that I am in town.

The public face of the church is very carefully curated and goes out of it's way to not be political. The only time I have ever heard them say anything remotely political at a public service was when NY passed their abortion rights law.

That said, the small groups are a completely different animal. Very political, very pro-trump (I mean jeffress pro-trump, not pro-president of America)

Interestingly, this two faced nature extends into religious doctrine as well.

You will never hear anything about speaking in tongues, casting out of demons, or any other Evangelical practices that make more mainline denominations cringe mentioned during the weekly service but they're all anybody talks about during small groups.

Quote:

---

Disagree. Once we are justified Christ accepts faults and all.

---

The person? Yes. The action? No. The cost to follow is high.

You don't see this in churches very much because church services tend to be about the Bible or Christian tradition and history. Those are strong checks against a Christian nationalism or a civil religion. As a guy who preached multiple times a week and designed and taught Sunday school classes, nonsense partisanship is hard to get to when you already have to go through Bible and the religious calendar - plus things like paying bills and dealing with internal issues. There just isn't enough time unless you're blatantly and hopelessly partisan.

But we shouldn't confuse "American Christianity" or "American Christians" with what goes on at churches given that a huge amount of American Christians don't go to church services. If these people are Christian but don't go to church and don't identify with a particular tradition, Trump or Obama or whichever celebrity using Christian language are very appealing.

As long as your defense is "this doesn't happen at churches I know or churchgoing people I know", then I think you're missing a big part of the country while insulating yourself from diagnosing a genuine threat to the faith.

Rocag said:

---

But I certainly do get to decide my own point of view. Never once have i demanded any of you agree with it and have always described it as the view from the outside looking in. And even then it was a limited description to American Christianity, a distinction I have been clarifying since then as referring to the brand of Christianity that has eschewed the separation of church and state and raised nationalism as a spiritual virtue.

---

I don't think I've seen anyone surrender this quickly since the French. It's almost like you made an overbroad claim and then had to backpeddle for a few pages before disclaiming it.

This isn't forum 16

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Disagree. Once we are justified Christ accepts faults and all.

---

The person? Yes. The action? No. The cost to follow is high.

---

Christ did all the work and paid our cost. All we have to do is accept and obey. There is nothing I or any human can do to be born again or be resurrected from the dead. And when I have followed, I have always been blessed, even when it seemed like I was being cursed.

Exactly. And I think one's willingness to step back and clarify a statement, even if it appears as "backpedaling" to some, is a credit to them.

Agree. I just wish Rocag would give the Lord a try again.

I stick by everything I've said in this thread. No backpedaling.

Dermdoc, no offense intended but at this point the idea of giving Christianity another chance probably makes as much sense to me as the suggestion that maybe you should give Hinduism a chance does to you. I'd have to see some compelling evidence to support it that isn't just an appeal to emotion and honestly I don't see that happening.

Cool. Enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate your viewpoints.

PacifistAg said:

---

Exactly. And I think one's willingness to step back and clarify a statement, even if it appears as "backpedaling" to some, is a credit to them.

---

He was just standing up for his right to his own point of view when offering a 'limited description' of what he called '[relatively] prevalent as signs of a larger trend'? One that a 'good chunk' believes that the rest of us are simply downplaying? Yes, that's just clarification. Totally. Keep giving him credit.

I'm sorry nuance is such a difficult subject for you.

Rocag said:

---

I'm sorry nuance is such a difficult subject for you.

---

MQB is nuance. You're just dragging Christians because someone posted a trump thread outside 16.

I don't have anything against Christians. I do have an interest in the very political and nationalistic brand of Christianity which exists in America, specifically as it relates to secularism and how the separation of church and state or more accurately its weakening affects both sides. My larger assertion is that over the long term Christians will come to regret this close relationship which while allowing religion some expanded say in government has also allowed government to have greater say in religion. Donald Trump and how his image has been presented is a perfect example of this theme and why I think he is the face of this type of American Christianity.

I think a good example of what Rocag is referring to can be found on the Tucker Carlson thread on the politics board. People professing to be followers of Christ, defending the use of the c-word about women, even claiming that all guys do it outside the company of women, then claiming that a Christian who rejects that notion is being "holier than thou".

I think part of the issue is cultural Christianity, where people don't attend church but claim to be Christians. I think that's the biggest group within Americanized Christianity. But even among churchgoers, there are some, albeit a much smaller number, who have a disconnect between their Sunday self and their Mon-Sat self. They talk about the love of Christ on Sunday, then exhibit nothing but hatred towards political opponents Mon-Sat while also defending the indefensible because of a shared political tribe. Which is why I believe we need to be on guard against man's politics infecting the Church. It's a cancer and breeds hatred and division.

Quote:

---

I think part of the issue is cultural Christianity, where people don't attend church but claim to be Christians. I think that's the biggest group within Americanized Christianity. But even among churchgoers, there are some, albeit a much smaller number, who have a disconnect between their Sunday self and their Mon-Sat self. They talk about the love of Christ on Sunday, then exhibit nothing but hatred towards political opponents Mon-Sat while also defending the indefensible because of a shared political tribe. Which is why I believe we need to be on guard against man's politics infecting the Church. It's a cancer and breeds hatred and division.

---

I don't really see the value in differentiating between those who don't follow Christ who go to church and those that don't. The issue is giving a false impression of one's beliefs period.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think part of the issue is cultural Christianity, where people don't attend church but claim to be Christians. I think that's the biggest group within Americanized Christianity. But even among churchgoers, there are some, albeit a much smaller number, who have a disconnect between their Sunday self and their Mon-Sat self. They talk about the love of Christ on Sunday, then exhibit nothing but hatred towards political opponents Mon-Sat while also defending the indefensible because of a shared political tribe. Which is why I believe we need to be on guard against man's politics infecting the Church. It's a cancer and breeds hatred and division.

---

I don't really see the value in differentiating between those who don't follow Christ who go to church and those that don't. The issue is giving a false impression of one's beliefs period.

---

Good point. I only differentiated because someone mentioned earlier (IIRC) that the people Rocag was talking about claim to be Christian but aren't regular churchgoers. I think there are regular churchgoers that would fall into the group that Rocag was referring to. But, in reality, there's not a discernible difference between the two, except for Sunday morning activities.

Without love, it's just a bunch of noisy gongs. I think Rocag is hearing the noisy gongs because they are the loudest. I think the majority of Christians, though, wouldn't fall in that category.

Good points and that's definitely a part of it, though I'm not sure what the actual breakdown is regarding Christians who actively attend church and those that don't.

A good example I think of government influencing religion is those small government conservatives demanding school prayer and the Bible be taught in school. Effectively what they are asking for is for government employees to teach proper interpretation of the Bible and how to pray. It baffles me that so many actually want that. If you give them that power don't act surprised when they actually start to use it, perhaps on ways you don't like.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think part of the issue is cultural Christianity, where people don't attend church but claim to be Christians. I think that's the biggest group within Americanized Christianity. But even among churchgoers, there are some, albeit a much smaller number, who have a disconnect between their Sunday self and their Mon-Sat self. They talk about the love of Christ on Sunday, then exhibit nothing but hatred towards political opponents Mon-Sat while also defending the indefensible because of a shared political tribe. Which is why I believe we need to be on guard against man's politics infecting the Church. It's a cancer and breeds hatred and division.

---

I don't really see the value in differentiating between those who don't follow Christ who go to church and those that don't. The issue is giving a false impression of one's beliefs period.

---

Yes but that strawman is a bit limp compared to the fresh hay in the other one.

Quote:

---

A good example I think of government influencing religion is those small government conservatives demanding school prayer and the Bible be taught in school.

---

This is a push that I've never understood. First, if there are no prayers being said inside the schoolhouse, don't blame the government. Blame your children who aren't praying in the schoolhouse. Blame the teachers who aren't praying in the schoolhouse. There's no law against a person praying in school. The use of publicly funded resources has never been necessary to pray. And, as you pointed out, do we really want Bible taught in school? I mean, I assume it's more than just memorizing a verse, but learning how to interpret the verse. Whose interpretation do we go with? Fundamentalists? Orthodox? Mainline Protestants? RCC? Do we really want a teacher, who is likely not a learned theologian, to teach children about biblical interpretation?

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

A good example I think of government influencing religion is those small government conservatives demanding school prayer and the Bible be taught in school.

---

This is a push that I've never understood. First, if there are no prayers being said inside the schoolhouse, don't blame the government. Blame your children who aren't praying in the schoolhouse. Blame the teachers who aren't praying in the schoolhouse. There's no law against a person praying in school. The use of publicly funded resources has never been necessary to pray. And, as you pointed out, do we really want Bible taught in school? I mean, I assume it's more than just memorizing a verse, but learning how to interpret the verse. Whose interpretation do we go with? Fundamentalists? Orthodox? Mainline Protestants? RCC? Do we really want a teacher, who is likely not a learned theologian, to teach children about biblical interpretation?

---

Agree whole heartedly.

dermdoc said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

A good example I think of government influencing religion is those small government conservatives demanding school prayer and the Bible be taught in school.

---

This is a push that I've never understood. First, if there are no prayers being said inside the schoolhouse, don't blame the government. Blame your children who aren't praying in the schoolhouse. Blame the teachers who aren't praying in the schoolhouse. There's no law against a person praying in school. The use of publicly funded resources has never been necessary to pray. And, as you pointed out, do we really want Bible taught in school? I mean, I assume it's more than just memorizing a verse, but learning how to interpret the verse. Whose interpretation do we go with? Fundamentalists? Orthodox? Mainline Protestants? RCC? Do we really want a teacher, who is likely not a learned theologian, to teach children about biblical interpretation?

---

Agree whole heartedly.

---

Although I would enjoy teaching the children of some of the posters here about open theism and Christian nonviolence.

Rocag said:

---

And I don't think you get to decide what Christianity is or who represents it. My description might not fit your particular version of it but there is so much variation between different brands of Christianity that you can hardly say your version is the only one. For instance, from my point of view Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses and a bunch others all fit under the umbrella of Christianity even though you might argue some of them shouldn't.

---

Let me clarify something because this is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Mormons, jehovas witness etc are not Christians. This isn't me being opinionated or a big meanie who says they aren't cool enough to join my crew (otherwise it would be a much more exclusive club)

There are rules for what defines Christianity, namely trinitarian belief. Those guys deny the most basic rules for what makes a Christian.

I can call myself a sales engineer all I want, but everyone who is a mechanical, structural, civil, electrical engineer etc is going to point and say "yeah but she's not actually an engineer" and they would be right.

Saying the Pope represents all of Christianity would be just as silly as saying Falwell or Osteen represents all of Christianity. They don't. Saying all Christians are like the Westboro Baptists would be silly.

I'm not trying to get into a No True Scotsman debate at all, but rather point at that people who consider Trump a prophet of God or religious leader or whatever are far more fringe than what you implied..they exist, sure. They are loud and obnoxious, absolutely...but make up the majority? Absolutely not.

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to get into a No True Scotsman debate at all, but rather point at that people who consider Trump a prophet of God or religious leader or whatever are far more fringe than what you implied..they exist, sure. They are loud and obnoxious, absolutely...but make up the majority? Absolutely not.

---

Personally, I want to be believe you but I fear that people adhere to his "fringe" belief far more than they let on.

Ah yes. Nothing says reverence for Scripture like having a thrice-married man who paid off his porn star mistress, and boasts of never asking for forgiveness, scribble his name on it, then turning around and selling it for a profit.

It was signed in 2016 at a campaign. Who looks this stuff up and makes news out of it? I guess hatred and judgment draws clicks

After thinking this through I think it's really frustrating that 20 people die and the focus is about this.

Frok said:

---

It was signed in 2016 at a campaign. Who looks this stuff up and makes news out of it? I guess hatred and judgment draws clicks

After thinking this through I think it's really frustrating that 20 people die and the focus is about this.

---

Yes, I'm aware that one was signed at a campaign rally. So perhaps they didn't know he had paid off a mistress at that point. I imagine it came to light because him signing bibles was in the news, so it doesn't seem like a stretch that a google search would pull up an ebay auction of a bible signed by Trump. I don't see any judgement in the article, or hatred. It looks to be reporting the facts of a story.

Just because it's about Trump doesn't mean it's driven by hatred or judgement. That's also an ironic claim because the claim itself is making a judgement about the motives behind reporting it.

Let me ask this: do you at least understand why some Christians would have an issue with autographing the cover of a bible, especially someone who is of such questionable moral character? I think it seems inappropriate and irreverent, at the very least. That has nothing to do with hate.

It's true I am doing the same thing. I just feel the need to defend a group of people who so often draw the disdain from many. Yes, it is wierd to have your bible signed or to sign someone's bible. But under the circumstances a good reporter wouldn't make that the major takeaway from the situation.

I'll add, I am not judging you personally or anyone on here. Just the media. Sorry if I gave that impression

Frok said:

---

It's true I am doing the same thing. I just feel the need to defend a group of people who so often draw the disdain from many. Yes, it is wierd to have your bible signed or to sign someone's bible. But under the circumstances a good reporter wouldn't make that the major takeaway from the situation.

I'll add, I am not judging you personally or anyone on here. Just the media. Sorry if I gave that impression

---

Oh the media is horrible. No argument there. As for defending a group that draws the disdain of many, both sides have a deep-seated disdain for each other. Just go one board down to see the other side of that. It's something that's bred by tribalism, which is all that partisanship is. It's why I detest seeing it infect the church.

Heck, it's not even just political tribalism that breeds that disdain. Start a thread on trans people, especially on forum 16, but even here, and watch the disdain flow.