Here is what my reply on Nexus would be to Robbie and Jason.
Robbie ,Interesting article. fortunately, I think it's spot on in regards to the dead-end and
failing future of the evangelical movement which is long overdue because of some of the harm it has caused.
Not really a 'banner' of an article for poor Rob. Quote of the day reflects that evangelicals have failed to pass on to their young people an 'orthodox' form of religion that can take 'root' and 'survive' the secular onslaught which is much stronger. Ironically, the billions of dollars they've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own religion except how they feel about it which is what it is supposed to be doing actually. They are suppoed to have feelings towards their religion, it is not 'obligatory' and the young folk questioning and leaving have learned this.
So true, what Jennifer said. The deep-rooted intolerance masked by all the the dogmas of Christianity will finally be revealed for what it is in your religion which is very limited towards it's tolerance of others. At least at that point, it might be harder for those Christians to maintain the façade of tolerance. Total tolerance has always been difficult, and the kind of "tolerance" your Christian cultures has been increasingly advocating will only lead to injury, violence, inhumane treatment. So in a way it will be unpleasant when it is more openly directed at non-Christians, but on the other hand it is quite validating and at least brings the truth into the open—which is something every true moral person wants.
Even a cursory glance of history shows the continued and brutal persecution of non- Christians and highlights that much of the 'persecution' faced by Christians is imaginary. It is not hard, however, to find the same directed by 'true' biblical literalist Christianity at the rest of the world.
If, by tolerance, you mean that Christians are intolerant of what the fictional Christ character and the real person has wrongly dictated as 'sin', then yes, you are willfully intolerant and should not be, as what you label wrongly as 'sin' is not a 'sin' nor is it hurting anyone else. The day Christians begin to stop accepting what is not 'sin' in themselves and your neighbors you have not 'forfeited' the fictional Christ character nor the real Jesus whom we cannot know too much about as he has been dead a long time, but have gained much more, not even the 'Christ' who is not a very 'moral' character as portrayed in the religious texts needs to be discarded entirely, maybe the real Jesus might have been better but 'brotherly love' itself has not been sacrificed as a result of this. It only strengthens it.
Would she rather have someone who "tolerates"her . Allows her to kill herself which she could do but probably shouldn't, or if she wants someone who 'loves' her and therefore claims to 'want only what is 'good ' for her by making her think and believe like they do and dislike all the same people that you do then no, she probably wouldn't even she is not 'blinded' to know what that is and therefore she cannot 'despise' the very thing that would not 'save 'her due to lack of sufficent evidence.
The world can keep tolerance, and you do not hold onto 'love'. The 'love' you hold does not resemble anything close to being humane.
There are some times where tolerance and love are not 'at odds' with one another. Love is a complete commitment to another's true good. This is why a parent who does not discipline his/her child does mean that they do not 'truly love' that child, it just means their irresponsible and needs to shape up. Tolerance of what is not 'harmful behavior' is a sign that love is truly ruling that relationship. Tolerating your spouse to beat your child is harmful and is not 'loving'. Tolerating people like you, Jason who hate others who act in ways and believe differently, neither which is harming you is not loving by not speaking out against your hate and bigotry. This is something everyone instinctively knows, but because of the emphasis on tolerance at all costs in our society, it is often not 'intentionally' forgotten but is sometimes applied in the wrong circumstances.
And Jennifer, it sounds as though she is quite tolerant of certain things or kinds of people. It might be best to throw stones from that glass house if someone in the house is being harmed.
The point of posting this article wasn't to get into a debate over tolerance and persecution, it was to cause others to reflect on the future of the modern Evangelical movement.
The author discusses the future of Christianity in the U.S. and how the Evangelical movement will 'fare' and it is not 'faring' very well. Christians, as a whole, are quite new to 'persecution' which is mostly imaginery (see world history which is largely fabricated in the 'persecutions' of Christians
which were mostly done by different denominations of Christianity) and it's not the point the writer is making. What he is wrongly discussing is that the same level of 'persecution' of Chinese Christians, for a modern example, are facing will not be 'very soon' be 'found' nor will it be replicated in the United States as well.
The fictional , quite perverted and largely evil concept 'sin' will never be accepted by non-Christians and it's this stance that will bring them persecution, not their views on love and tolerance which many times are better than that of actually Christians. What is called 'sin' by
Christians is mostly is not justified and most of it is not harmful'. It is your wrongful
'stance' on things that should not be deemed 'sinful' is what is so wrong with the negative aspects of your religion and that needs to change. So what Christians wrongly label as 'sin' most of time is neither 'harmful' nor worthy of being called a 'sin' and Christians should accept those actions or feelings as a matter that is private and personal.
Also, hostility is defined as " openly opposed or resisting, not hospitable, having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature..." (Meriam Webster). True. It would show your attitude towards
labelling non-harmful feelings or activities as 'sin'.
Text messages often fail to convey a sense of humor or what might be intended as a jab, but as far as textual content some of the comments made here definitely do not 'qualify', whether they and probably were intended that way. If not then they just might mean to call attention to serious matters or to highlight a disagreement. Inappropiate antagonistic comments made by Christians that are followed by criticism from atheists or other non-christians shaming the specific Christian's prejudice is often brough on afterwards with cries of 'hostility' from Christians seem silly as it is 'essentially' not the pot calling the kettle black... but calling out bigotry when it is recognized
which is usually Christians labelling the Muslims as 'evil' when both have very evil teachings but both have some good beliefs which they don't focus on enough.
P.S. Not disciplining a disobedient child is nowhere near comparable with threating them with eternal damnation or annihilation for not believing what the adults around them believe as we can make sure that the parent does their job or they will no longer be qualified to be a parent. You cannot prove that they will be 'saved' to begin with even if they are member of your religion. Their god could reject them just because he is the rule maker. There is no proof that this god exists and is being 'saved' worth it, Robbie, if it means being stuck with bigoted and hypocritical pricks like you who suffer from paranoia and imaginary persecutions?
By the way, the Christian Science Monitor is not really that good of a religious website in the first place. I don't like CSM. It's filled with a bunch of crybabies.
This person says a lot of stuff without any coherent argument, more like a scare story for Christians (complete with the multiple references to growing hatred of Christianity). To some extent he sees evangelism being replaced or modified by the charismatic movement, which he sees as a potential positive.
Yeah, well that is his problem. The Charismatics and the evangelicals are both quite nuts. Most are good people but they are nuts. The charismatic, Pentecostal and evangelical movements are largely laying in ned together. His claims are not convincing. I don't see the charismatic or the evangelical movements as being very positive in all actuality. Both are quite negative. He is arguing based on unappealing emotion. He's just making an excuse to bitch about something. He's quite the drama queen and his arguments don't really hold any weight. The evangelical and charismatic movements are dying out and this dude needs to realize it.
Brandi Amari Williams
I agree with you there. It's an opinion piece. The fact is, no one can say what the future will bear. There is ebb and flow of religion in the US, which is what this article mainly addresses. Periods when secularism is tolerated, alternate with periods of religious obsession.
The scare tactic of "religious intolerance" is common in the religious right. It's correct to muse about tasting one's own medicine.
I think they missed a reason, to wit:
Young people are failing to fall for the indoctrination into dogma and belief system that their parents accepted. Modern media and it's unblinking scrutiny, criticism and downright mockery of the improbable assertions of evangelical christianity is causing many millennials to move into the "NONE" column, if not entirely into atheism.
Translation: kids are SMARTER, better informed and far less credulous ... and the churches they would otherwise attend are taking it on the chin as a result.
Je redoute trois journaux plus que 100.000 baïonnettes.
The collapse of evangelism? As the old saying goes, "Hope springs eternal."
That's a great way to put it Pat! Here's to hoping!~ Melinda
I am delighted to read this piece of news. Some, if not many, may remember that in the recent past I have more than once said that religions will be finished in next two hundred years. This seems like the beginning of that end.