Originally Posted by
heffray
I love this conversation. You made a lot of points above and I think I’d like to address them specifically…
1. I know what you mean by this, but I don’t think it’s fair to classify all conservatives as either “braindead” or “anti-woke”. I do actually agree that at this point, most of the people using the word “woke” are using it disparagingly to describe something they don’t understand or are against. But the actual truth of what they mean or represent should not just be generalized as a result of being “braindead,” “degenerate,” or “raging shitbags.” I know a lot of conservatives who are not those things, and frankly, a lot of liberals who do fit that description.
2. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of Liz. I will look up some of her work because I find that stuff interesting, but for sake of argument, her wiki page says she is Catholic, so I don’t think she would qualify as an “Evangelical.” See my next point for more on this.
3. I think we need to define “Evangelical.” It is not interchangeable with “Christian,” and it’s not a specific denomination of Christianity. It not specific to American Christianity, though I believe its primary driving force is rooted in American Protestant mainline denominations. In my experience, a proper definition of “Evangelical” is anyone who holds to some specific doctrines: Inerrancy of Scripture, The Trinity, and Substitutionary Atonement. Not all Christians believe these things, but most American’s who have conservative political values do, and most would describe themselves as Evangelical. Happy to dig into either of these 3 if you want.
4. I am familiar with the passage, but you are DEFINITELY over-generalizing to say the the Bible is “emphatically pro-abortion.” Just ask any evangelical Christian Apologist for an explanation of the Numbers problem and they’ll have an answer for you. That answer may not be satisfactory to you or me, but it is to them and that’s kinda the point (and the next point, too). Additionally, the Bible is emphatically anti-murder (see the Ten Commandments), and most Christians believe that an unborn fetus is a human life, ipso facto, the Bible is also anti-murder. Anyway, I think you see my point there…
5. I don’t think it’s fair to classify the doctrine of infant baptism as theological nonsense. To me, it follows pretty logically from the doctrine of Original sin and substitutionary atonement, and since we have verses that support baptism as a sacrament and medium for god’s atonement, then what happens to infants or children who die before they get baptized, free pass? Many evangelicals actually believe in something called “the age of accountability” as a way of explaining that away, but what is interesting is that this concept is found NO WHERE in the Bible. It was just something that was made up to make them feel better about all the dead babies.
6. Are you familiar with the “No True Scotsman Fallacy”? That is what you are doing here. Evangelicals who do not support “woke” ideas could easily say that anyone who doesn’t believe as they believe aren’t true Christians. And frankly, there are WAY more of them than there are Progressive Christians who support abortion rights and LGBTQ rights (for example). Who’s right? You, because you can’t see their side of the argument? Well, they can’t see yours either and we’re right back where we started.
Senior Member
Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
Re: What sort of thread have you made for us? A Wentz thread, if you can keep it.
Senior Member
Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
you are underemployed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote