Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

All of you realize that Trump isn't actually going to build the wall? I mean, he's a narcissistic, racist, sexist demagogue, but he's not stupid. The wall is financially infeasible and isn't actually practical at all... I mean, seriously, someone could just use a frickin' ladder. The sole purpose of the "wall" idea is to get Trump elected. And now that he has, he's going to act like progress is being made while actually doing nothing.

I think that if Trump weren't going to try to build the wall he would have started to spin it into it being a metaphorical wall as soon it was clear he was the next president. I guess there's still time to do that, but until then it looks likely there will at least be an attempt at a literal wall.

[PTTG??]

A national evangelical council has stepped forward to announce themselves medieval bigots in clear terms. Link.

I'd like to draw attention to #2 here. Considering that 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump, despite his repeated and diverse "sexual immoralities," Evangelicals cannot be said to be consistent. I suppose in the end it makes the moneymaking scheme clear -- you can't properly sate Moloch without massive temples and huge amounts of sinners paying indulgences.

It also states that the only correct interpretation of the bible is one that calls homosexuality and transexuality a sin. I guess they're calling all remotely progressive churches in the nation heretics now?

[smjjames]

Given that they call themselves a coalition for biblical sexuality, is it really any surprise? And I don't see anything about number 2 being about making money.

edit: Oh I see what you mean regarding #2 and Trump. Theres also several other self contradictions in those articles.

[Lord Shonus]

Considering that 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump

80% of self-identified white "born-again evangelicals" voted for Trump. Every other combination of race and religion either had far narrower pro-Trump margins or voted Hillary.

Further, later polling suggests that the vast majority of these were not voting for Trump but against Hillary due to the Supreme Court vacancy and fears that she would appoint a far-left judge.

Again, this boils down more to Clinton being a rather unpopular candidate than any perceived virtue of Trump's.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Trump's sexuality is plenty biblical. Like Solomon of old, God has rewarded his devotion to the divine will with myriad fruits.

[nenjin]

Well on the one hand, at least they're saying stuff like 'being gay or transgender or a woman does not make you less worth of dignity or respect." That's more than I would have expected of them.

On the other....they say shit like "We believe homosexuals can feel attraction to the same sex and still live in accordance with god's plan" while also simultaneously saying "being attracted to the same sex ISN'T part of god's plan."

....that's some fucking hubris right there. We know what god wants and doesn't want and we can create a structure that accommodates both like we're in direct fucking communication with the Almighty about what he's thinking.

Their articles are so smugly self-serving it makes me want to punch someone. "We DENY that God's reach is too short to save any sinner." Oh, seriously, go get fucked.

Apparently someone thinks the transgender issue is the next enduring front of the culture wars.

[smjjames]

The front of the culture wars is/are always going to be shifting anyway.

[nenjin]

Yeah but this appears pretty laser focused on transgenders.

[PTTG??]

Hey, so here's a thing. If marriage is a "covenant with god," that makes it a religious action. The first amendment bans laws establishing or restricting religions.

Since gay marriages are not a "covenant with god," if they are undertaken at all, they (by the Evangelical definition) are secular.

Therefore, straight marriage is banned by the constitution, but not gay.

[scriver]

Considering that 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump

80% of self-identified white "born-again evangelicals" voted for Trump. Every other combination of race and religion either had far narrower pro-Trump margins or voted Hillary.

Further, later polling suggests that the vast majority of these were not voting for Trump but against Hillary due to the Supreme Court vacancy and fears that she would appoint a far-left judge.

Again, this boils down more to Clinton being a rather unpopular candidate than any perceived virtue of Trump's.

Semantics question: I associate the phrase "born-again [Christian, for example]" as an individual somebody who has found religion during life, more specifically past their adolescence. You seem to use it more as a denomition of evangelism, is that how it is actually used?

I feel as if I have asked this before, so I'm sorry if I have. I'm clearly in need of a reminder though because I can't remember the answer.

[Reelya]

It also states that the only correct interpretation of the bible is one that calls homosexuality and transexuality a sin. I guess they're calling all remotely progressive churches in the nation heretics now?

That's where the gains are for creationists.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

2017 survey, 19% believe in natural evolution , 38% believe in creationism, and 38% believe in theistic evolution. In 1999 it was just 9% for atheist evolution, so 4 times as many evolutionists in 1999 were religious. Theistic evolution is the norm in America but both creationists and atheists act like their some abberant minority on the sidelines.

The true battle lines here aren't between atheists and creationists but between creationists and theistic evolutionists. By drawing a line in the sand "god or science" the creationists are trying to force other theists to convert to their side. Liberal Atheists are just a convenient punching bag / strawman in the battle.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Considering that 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump

80% of self-identified white "born-again evangelicals" voted for Trump. Every other combination of race and religion either had far narrower pro-Trump margins or voted Hillary.

Further, later polling suggests that the vast majority of these were not voting for Trump but against Hillary due to the Supreme Court vacancy and fears that she would appoint a far-left judge.

Again, this boils down more to Clinton being a rather unpopular candidate than any perceived virtue of Trump's.

Semantics question: I associate the phrase "born-again [Christian, for example]" as an individual somebody who has found religion during life, more specifically past their adolescence. You seem to use it more as a denomition of evangelism, is that how it is actually used?

I feel as if I have asked this before, so I'm sorry if I have. I'm clearly in need of a reminder though because I can't remember the answer.

Born-again Christian is a rhetorical device, generally indicating a fundamentalist and conservative view of the faith. It stems from Jesus' claim in the bible that a person who has been baptized in water is spiritually experiencing a second birth, transitioning from a fallen state to a "new creation" who is saved.

While technically all Christian faiths that baptize consider themselves to be born-again, rhetorical focus on it is mostly limited to the fundamentalists.

It also states that the only correct interpretation of the bible is one that calls homosexuality and transexuality a sin. I guess they're calling all remotely progressive churches in the nation heretics now?

That's where the gains are for creationists.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

2017 survey, 19% believe in natural evolution , 38% believe in creationism, and 38% believe in theistic evolution. In 1999 it was just 9% for atheist evolution, so 4 times as many evolutionists in 1999 were also religious believers.

The true battle lines here aren't between atheists and creationists but between creationists and theistic evolutionists. By drawing a line in the sand "god or science" the creationists are trying to force convert other theists to their side. Liberal Atheists are just a convenient punching bag / strawman in the battle.

That's not the picture I get from this data. Over the thirty-year period theistic evolutionists have been almost static, varying only temporally from their high-30s position. Meanwhile, atheistic evolutionists have doubled in size and the creationists are in the midst of a collapse.

[Dunamisdeos]

Amusing (morbidly)! But I think a case could be made that since multiple religions practice their own rituals of marriage, there is no restriction. Also, it bans the direct establishment of religions by the federal government.

Also, marriage is not legally defined as a covenant with God, only as a contract between a man and woman in which they live together (genders involved have been updated/stricken in recent times, of course).

RELIGION TIME: "Born-again" refers to the metaphorical process of accepting Christ. It infers that one is starting a new life as a Christian. Since you cannot be born a Christian, and must decide for yourself whether or not to follow that lifestyle and system of belief, all Christians can be considered "born-again". I find however that people tend to use it in the same vein as "bible-thumper" when they want to sound dramatic.

::EDIT:: I must correct the above statement and advise that it indicates exactly nothing as to one's "fundamentalism" or political leanings, since my entire card-carrying Democrat-liberal family considers themselves "born-again".

[smjjames]

Theistic evolutionists? Is that the "evolution is guided by the hand of god?" while rejecting the pseudoscience of creationists? Not sure what the difference is between the two.

This should go in that religion thread though....

edit: The stuff about born again christians and stuff definetly should go into the religion thread.

[Dunamisdeos]

The argument I generally hear is usually that God is implied to exist outside of time or at least experiences it differently, so why not? Those don't have to be literal days of creation, after all.

::EDIT::
Also yeah, this is not the religion thread, sorry for perpetuating that line of thought there. Don't want to derail into religion, after all.