No two Christians, evangelical or otherwise, are the (s)ame just as no two Athesist are the same.
See, the problem I have with this statement is the simple fact that people are voting in record numbers against gay marriage and any form of civil union for gay people that remotely resemble marriage. California is suppose to be the liberal state and it passed a gay marriage/civil union ban with a referandum. And the simple fact remains that evangelical churches all around the country are rallying fundings and support to do whatever they can to tell us that gay people are diseased.
While I was a TA in college, I encountered many college students that proclaimed themselves to evangelical christians. These same students were also the most arrogant students I ever met. Some of them were knowitalls. They even tried to argue with the cosmology professor on stellar evolution.
The point is these are more than just stereotypes. These characteristics are prevalent among many if not most evangelicals.
Let me ask you this. East Asian people tend to like using chopsticks to eat food while westerners tend to eat with a fork and a knife. Is it a stereotype that East Asian people use chopsticks? Well, sure. But it's more than just stereotype. It's a fact.
Same thing with evangelicals. Grab any random evangelical off the street and you will almost always find within him the stereotypical attitudes, like anti-gay and anti-science sentiments.
You can't claim that these are simple stereotypes by pointing out a couple isolated exceptions. There were a few good nazis in the 40s. But we sure as hell don't try to say that the nazis being evil is just a stereotype. It's more than a stereotype. It's a fact that those were evil bastards.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Of course, it would also be nice if most Christians acted upon Jesus' admonition to heal the sick, feed the poor, and bring peace. Instead we get the admonition to destroy science, create the sick, screw the poor, and cause war.
I can't remember the figures but the vast majority of aid that goes to the third world comes from Christian organizations. The vast majority of food banks are faith based. Modern science grew out of Christianity from the likes of Newton.
I go to a small orthodox Anglican church. It is not a wealthy congregation. We support a young woman in Uganda that is running a home and providing education for young women in Africa. All of the fundamentalist churches that I know of around here do the same sort of thing. Most of the Christians I know are involved in volunteer work in the community.
Look what secular governments have done in the third world. They have loaned money to brutal dictators in Africa and loaded the countries with debt. The dictator is finally deposed and now in many cases they have a leader who actually does want to help and he is saddled with all this debt to some wealthy western government.
Western governments loaned the best part of a billion dollars to Idi Amin to finance that brutal regime and then charged rates of interest that at one time were near 20%. That government is still carrying and paying out that debt. Liberia has a similar problem. Individuals declare bankruptcy. Third world countries don't seem to be able to do that.
Christians and churches don't lend money to third world countries - they give it.
I help support a Christian who was formally employed by a Christian television network. I would imagine that he is a lot more fundamentalist in his doctrine than I am but his whole life is about enabling people in the Sudan to get into farming. He spends a great deal of time himself in this war torn country. Cal Bombay
You have stereotyped Christians and then set that up as a strawman to take pot shots at.
Meanwhile the purveyors remain always unassailable by supposed moderate Christians as the unquestioned false prophet drives off in a luxury car on the way to their mansion.
Watch the following vid.
Christian churches should be all over this guy that is cheating people out of millions of dollars. But no. It takes an atheist magician to expose this fraud. And even then, christians are freely giving their money to this fraud.
Again, it's hard to think these characteristics are just stereotypes if we continue to see crap like this.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
The thing is, it is NOT too broad. The behavior of ALL the evangelistic churches tend to be the same. They might be a little more flexible in some places, but the essence of the church is 'get the word out', and it leads to behaviors that intrude, are deceptive, and are just plain rude.
I suggest that your case is over-stated and applies to a small minority. Our church considers itself evangelical and we do nothing deceptive, intrusive or rude. We go to church on Sundays and try to live lives, with varying degrees of success, that conform to the command of Jesus to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Sure we invite people to come to our church, and they are free to accept that invitation or not. Not much different than the Rotary club that way.
I can't remember the figures but the vast majority of aid that goes to the third world comes from Christian organizations. The vast majority of food banks are faith based.
I have to question the motives of many of these christians. Is it really helping their fellow brothers and sisters or is it sugar coating the faith to recruit?
While I was in college, I spent every of my spring break working for habitat for humanity. My summer vacations consisted mostly of habitat for humanity. We donate regularly to humanitarian organizations. We're also atheists, by the way.
When I talk to christians about their charity work, I always hear words like "it's because I'm a christian" or " god would want me to do it".
You remember riverrat? He told us that his church regularly feeds the poor. He also admitted to us that he and his church members would preach to them while they eat.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Uh, you misunderstood me. My problem isn't about those books and DVDs in the library. My problem is that they are in the science biology section. The library is a place for people to seek knowledge. It's not a place to spread your propaganda. All I ask is they be put in the right place.
First off, it's not my propaganda because I don't even agree with it. I also agree that it shouldn't be there and I wish it wasn't, but so what. Truth can stand on its own. Actually, once again it troubles me because it causes people to think they have to choose between evolutionary thinking and Christianity. It drags down the Christian faith which should give you some degree of satisfaction.
Again, it's hard to think these characteristics are just stereotypes if we continue to see crap like this.
I don't know of any Christian who isn't sickened by this sort of thing. The vast majority of Christians find this even more abhorrent than secularists because it is evil that puts on a Christian face.
Fraud is a secular crime and frankly has to be dealt with by secular police forces. I find it strange that it was a person acted on their own that brought this to light. Where were the police?
No, it can't! That's why we have an education system. That's why we teach algebra to school children. That's why we teach physics, biology, chemistry, etc. That's why we don't teach astrology, alchemy, etc.
Compared to the rest of the world, there are literally only a hand full of people who can tell the difference between religion and science. This is why we have expert testimonies. This is why we trust doctors more than faith healers... at least I trust doctors more than faith healers.
If truth can really stand on its own, we could simply claim that astrology, alchemy, and any version of holocaust denial to school children and let them decide.
The fact is most people are not qualified to tell the difference between fact and fiction. By placing creationist books and videos in a supposed biology non-fiction section, it is bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Fraud is a secular crime and frankly has to be dealt with by secular police forces. I find it strange that it was a person acted on their own that brought this to light. Where were the police?
See, religious people have made sure that these fraudsters can go unpunished by making religion off limits to the law. Remember faith healing? Currently, there are 45 states in the union that have laws protecting christian parents and faith healers from prosecution if they maim or kill their kids through neglect and denying their kids of medical intervention. With other people, this is called negligent homicide.
Same situation we see with Popoff. Because he claims to be a prophet and people are sending him money on their free will for miracles that god might or might not grant them, there is nothing the law can do as long as the bastard pays his taxes.
Added by edit.
I don't know of any Christian who isn't sickened by this sort of thing. The vast majority of Christians find this even more abhorrent than secularists because it is evil that puts on a Christian face.
This is weird. Christians often find enough time to protest against gay people on college campuses. Yet they can't find enough time to protest against frauds like Popoff and Benny Hinn?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
As evangelical scholars seek greater influence, Wolfe warns that getting respect is a two-way street.
Evangelicals in the academy too often aren't open to truly engaging those who disagree, said Wolfe, who points to things like "faith statements" at evangelical colleges, which require professors to proclaim Christian belief. A prospering intellectual culture wouldn't make that requirement and shut other views out, he said.
"It's when you view your tradition with such confidence that you want to offer it to others ... that's when you've made it," Wolfe said.
Among other reasons, I believe that one reason evangelicals garner no respect is because we start with our belief and presupposition that God exists and is personal.
Any good scientist would start by asking the question, "Does God exist" since belief is not a part of the scientific method.
ramoss writes:
Some might be a bit more flexible about evolution, but when it comes to the theology, they are as pig headed and obnoxious all round.
Why must they be labeled this way? Is it a crime for them to have a belief? You seem to think that nobody is allowed to have a belief unless it has experiments and evidence to back it up.
If I have a strong belief about something, I feel that I should not be discredited unless I insisted that you believe as I do. Sharing my belief is in and of itself no indictment based on stupidity or ignorance.
GDR writes:
I agree that Christianity is faith. It isn't science. Frankly, the biggest problem I have with creationist books in the science section, is that it holds the Christian faith up as being something that it isn't. In my view it represents a caricature of orthodox Christianity. My concern is that, as many do, readers will believe that in order to be Christian you have to believe, in a 6000 year old Earth, and that evolution is dead wrong. It doesn't take a lot of education to realize that this planet is more than 6000 years old, and on that false premise, Christianity is rejected.
I totally agree.
anglagard writes:
I think a reformation is way overdue.
I agree. Of course there would be arguments over what exactly needs reforming. You bring up the idea of individual behavior, and I think thats a good place to start.
In a free country of ideas, however, many churches would not feel the need for a reformation.
ramoss writes:
...the essence of the church is 'get the word out', and it leads to behaviors that intrude, are deceptive, and are just plain rude.
But as long as you have the right to say what you do, they should have the right to say what they do. Its like the paparazzi that bug celebrities. They may be rude and obnoxious, but they have rights within certain parameters.
Among other reasons, I believe that one reason evangelicals garner no respect is because we start with our belief and presupposition that God exists and is personal.
Then don't try to call it science, since science doesn't start with conclusion first.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
I have to question the motives of many of these christians. Is it really helping their fellow brothers and sisters or is it sugar coating the faith to recruit?
I'll leave the sugar coating comment alone but ask yourself why would they want to recruit as you call it? The only reason I am pleased when someone new becomes Christian is that I think it is a positive thing for them. I work in the church because I believe it is a positive thing for my community and the world. I agree that the same thing could be said about Rotary but I also believe that Christianity represents the truth of our existence in a way that is about as close as we are going to be able to understand it. (I don't mean in any scientific sense.) You may not buy it, but I'm not doing to rack up points with God. If I am the cause of bringing someone to Christianity it is not about me. It's about them.
Taz writes:
While I was in college, I spent every of my spring break working for habitat for humanity. My summer vacations consisted mostly of habitat for humanity. We donate regularly to humanitarian organizations. We're also atheists, by the way.
That's great. A woman in our church has also volunteered with that organization for years. There are many Atheists who do far more than many Christians. There are many Atheists who I would much rather live next door to than many Christians. So what?
Taz writes:
When I talk to christians about their charity work, I always hear words like "it's because I'm a christian" or " god would want me to do it".
Again, so what? Wouldn't that be better than telling people what you are doing with the implication that I doing it because I am so wonderful? (I am not referring to you by the way. I mean it only in a general sense.)
Taz writes:
You remember riverrat? He told us that his church regularly feeds the poor. He also admitted to us that he and his church members would preach to them while they eat.
I don't have time to find it but there was study done recently that showed very clearly that there was a far greater degree of success in getting people coming off drugs or off the street by those that had become Christian through these programs than the ones who didn't. So they are preached to. So what? Presumably their belief is that it will improve the lives of those that are being preached to.
The fact is most people are not qualified to tell the difference between fact and fiction. By placing creationist books and videos in a supposed biology non-fiction section, it is bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
The only ones that are going to be convinced of YEC by books like that are those that already are YEC. People are not going to turn to funadamentalist Christianity by reading those books. The only ones who will buy them are those who will use it to feel better about what they believe. Those books won't be changing any minds. As I said, all those books do is drag down the Christian faith as espoused by people from St. Augustine to CS Lewis and my current favourite N.T. Wright.
Same situation we see with Popoff. Because he claims to be a prophet and people are sending him money on their free will for miracles that god might or might not grant them, there is nothing the law can do as long as the bastard pays his taxes.
I remember years ago getting something in the mail from Popoff. I have no idea how he got my name. It consisted of a paper napkin with the outline of a hand on it. The idea was that I would put this hand on my forehead so that it would be like Peter himself laying hands on me. Oh, and by the way, send money.
It really is sad that there are people in this world who are so hurting that they will actually go along with this.
Of course there would be arguments over what exactly needs reforming. You bring up the idea of individual behavior, and I think thats a good place to start.
™ Version 4.2