Evangelical Stereotypes

Evangelical Scholars on Evangelical Stereotypes

Hum. Maybe if they don't want to be looked down at , they should actually learn some scholarship. IMO, it is hard to feel respect for 'scholars' who start of by stating that the bible is absolutely and literally true and infallible, and then try to 'prove' that with 'scholarship'

I'm just wondering if you even read the article. This for example:

quote:

---

Many equate evangelicals with fundamentalists, an evangelical subset that interprets the Bible literally -- as in the six calendar days of creation -- and is home to ardent evolution opponents. But Shah said most evangelical scientists believe in evolution guided by God.

---

That is one reason I do not use the term evangelical at all. Too broad a term, very easily misused. I prefer the terms fundamentalist & non-fundamentalist or reformist.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

As long as the evangelistic colleges have their 'faith statements', and as long as they push their viewpoints about in the manner in which they do, they won't break that stenotype.And, I am not too sure that Shah is right about it at all. 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.

I guess it's at least progress to have you agree that accepting the theory of evolution is being a bit more flexible. I'm curious as to why you feel that they are more pig headed and obnoxious about their theology than anyone else. Everybody believes something. I have to admit my guess is that the pig headed and obnoxious ones are those that don't agree with you.There are many of us that are Christian that have no argument with any branch of science.

Mainly because they target specific groups for conversion. If you take a look at the 'Messianic' Jewish groups, the vast majority were started and funded by evangelistic Christian churches. While the most famous (Jews for Jesus) was founded by the southern baptists, a number of them were started and/or funded by the more mainstream evangelistic groups.You will find a number of them claiming they didn't start or get funding from the Evangelistic, but if you look at their history, they tend to misstate their origins.for example, in 2003, the Presbterians in Philly decided to cut funding for the Messanic temples.. but they were the ones that started it. You will also find Missouri-Synod Lutherans, Assembly of God, and a few others can be used as examples.As long as you see the mainstream evangelistic churches do that, I won't respect them at allEdited by ramoss, : No reason given.

GDR, let me retell a story that I already told before on here.I was waltzing along minding my own business when a couple of evangelical christians tried to convince me to go into the building I was passing and attend a bible discussion class. They asked me if I had anywhere to go and out of the blue I told them the truth which was "no". They were certainly persistent even after I told them it wasn't my cup of tea. Then I decided to test out their supposed christian superior morals. I told them "I'm gay" and one of them said "ok, have a nice day".It's kinda hard to get past the stereotypes if all I see are just examples of stereotypes from the very people who proclaim themselves to be evangelical christians.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This brings me to my recent encounter in my very own library.I was going through the science sections to pick out some good reads and vids when I noticed a whole row of creationist/ID DVDs. One of them even said on the cover "For 150 years the debate has been going on. Now, the debate is over."I took a few examples of these DVDs to the resource center and asked them why they put a bunch of creationist DVDs in a science (biology) non-fiction section of the library. The woman said "Well, actually, there are scientific evidence that god..." She stopped herself in time, but I'm pretty sure the rest of the sentence was going to be something like "...of abraham created everything in 6 days blah blah blah..."She then said that they try to present both sides of the "issue" for people to see.For those of you who are more down to Earth, should I try to do something about it and what can I do?

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Frankly I'm not totally clear on the point you were making, but I agree with bluesact48 in that the term has too broad an interpretation. I would call myself evangelical as I believe the church is for everyone who chooses it, however I don't push my faith on people. I'm happy to talk about it, but we all make our own choices in answer to the question of "what is truth".Actually there is a good Francis of Assisi quote: "preach the gospel always, and if necessary use words".

No two Christians, evangelical or otherwise, are the ame just as no two Athesist are the same. We are all individuals. The biggest problem the church has is that it is made up of nothing but falible humans. None of us are perfect or even close.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

You could always join a movement that supports totalitarianism so you could have a good book burning.As the Dean of Libraries for a college library system, I personally bought (or donated) the following:Creation's Tiny Mystery
Of Panda's and People
Darwin's Black Box
The Edge of Evolution
The Troubled Waters of Evolution {some piece of crap by Morris I inherited}Jesus Camp (DVD)
Intelligent Design on Trial (DVD)
Why Darwin Matters
The Great Monkey Trial
Darwin on TrialPlus several hundred titles dealing with evolution and physical anthropology from the perspective of science including virtually everything Gould or Darwin ever published.And some others:Naked Lunch
Howl
Mein Kampf
The Turner Diaries
Lady Chatterley's Lover
Ulysses
4 versions of the Qu'ran
3 versions of the Tao
The God Delusion (and most others Dawkins wrote)
God is Not Great
The language of God
The Ramayana
The Mahabarata
Tibetan Book of the Dead
Book of Mormon
several hundred books involving various minor religions and Christian sects
and around 20 versions of the Bible, including the Tanakh.Hell, I haven't even started yet.So the question is:Which of these titles should I commit to the flames in order to please your sensibilities?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

My suggestion would be to ignore it. People have to sort things out for themselves. I don't see that books on Tarot cards have much to do with religion but you'll often find things like that in the "religion" section. I just don't see it as worth worrying about.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.

It would be really nice if there were enough Christians who denounced the ignorance and self-righteousness exemplified by the felon Hovind and the hypocrite Haggard.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.How much hate and hubris is there in how each natural disaster is due to having a population of atheists, homosexuals, liberals, democrats, and free thinkers. 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.I think a reformation is way overdue.Edited by anglagard, : improved English

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

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.