Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by cj the cynic on March 10, 2009 at 7:17pm

The christian science monitor irritates me to no end.

This is good news though. One can only hope the evangelicals do disappear.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Rosamond on March 11, 2009 at 1:15pm

Below I have posted a transcript of a discussion I had with a few Christians about this article. I didn't think my second post was that antagonistic, but apparently they did.


Robbie posted a link.
Yesterday at 1:17pm.
Interesting article. Sadly, I think it's spot on in regards to the future of the evangelical movement.

Jason at 2:52pm March 10
Banner of an article, Rob. Quote of the day: "Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we'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 faith except how they feel about it."

Jennifer at 7:50pm March 10
"Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good."

Not so nice when the intolerance is directed toward your group is it?

Jason at 8:02pm March 10
So true, Jennifer. The deep-rooted intolerance masked by all the dogmas of "tolerance" will finally be revealed for what it is. At least at that point, it might be harder for those who hate Christians to maintain the façade of tolerance. Total tolerance has always been impossible, and the kind of "tolerance" our society 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 Christians, but on the other hand it is quite validating and at least brings the truth into the open—which is something every true Christian wants.

Robbie at 9:42am March 11
Even a cursory glance of history shows the continued and brutal persecution of Christianity. It is hard, however, to find the same directed by true, biblical Christianity at the world.

If, by tolerance, we mean that Christians are intolerant of what Christ has dictated as sin, then yes, we are willfully intolerant and should be. The day Christians begin to accept the sin in ourselves and our neighbors we have forfeited not only Christ but brotherly love itself.

Would you rather have someone who "tolerates" you and allows you to kill yourself, or someone who loves you and therefore wants only good for you, even if you are too blinded to know what that is and therefore despise the very thing that would save you?

The world can keep tolerance, I will hold onto love.

Jennifer at 10:28am March 11
Even a cursory glance at the Bible shows that Christianity is about anything but love. And yes, I would rather have someone who "tolerates" me and respects the fact that I am an intelligent adult who can make my own decisions about what I should or shouldn't do with my own life. I don't need belief in a "Sky Daddy" to love my fellow humans. I am able to both tolerate and love at the same time. It is sad that you feel you have to choose one over the other.

“I would rather live and love where death is king than have eternal life where love is not.” - Robert Green Ingersoll

Jason at 12:21pm March 11
There are times where tolerance and love are 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 not truly love that child. Tolerance of harmful behavior is a sign that love is not truly ruling that relationship. This is something everyone instinctively knows, but because of the emphasis on tolerance at all costs in our society, it is often intentionally forgotten.

And Jennifer, it sounds as though you are quite intolerant of certain things or kinds of people. It might be best not to throw stones from that glass house.

Jennifer at 1:07pm March 11
I'm sorry. Did the "Sky Daddy" comment offend you? I don't know you and you obviously don't know me, so I believe your intolerance is showing by making a snap judgment about someone you don't know and have never met. I'll leave this hostile environment now and move on to better things.

Robbie at 1:18pm March 11
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. Christians, as a whole, are not new to persecution (see world history) and it's not the point the writer is making. What he is discussing is that the same level of persecution Chinese Christians, for a modern example, are facing will very soon be found in the United States as well.

Sin will never be accepted by Christians and it's this stance that will bring them persecution, not their views on love and tolerance.

Robbie at 1:22pm March 11
Also, hostility is defined as " openly opposed or resisting, not hospitable, having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature..." (Meriam Webster).

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 qualify, whether they were intended that way or not. Antagonistic comments followed by cries of hostility seem silly as it is essentially the pot calling the kettle black...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debra Stevenson on April 19, 2013 at 2:12am

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.

Jason,

 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.

Jason.
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.

Robbie ,
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.

Jason,

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.

Robbie,

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.

Robbie ,

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.

Brandi Williams

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jay H on April 19, 2013 at 5:29am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debra Stevenson on April 19, 2013 at 5:38am

jay H,

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on April 19, 2013 at 9:53am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on April 19, 2013 at 1:54pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Napoleon Bonaparte on April 19, 2013 at 2:07pm

Je redoute trois journaux plus que 100.000 baïonnettes.

Napoleon Bonaparte

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on April 19, 2013 at 2:43pm

The collapse of evangelism? As the old saying goes, "Hope springs eternal."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on April 19, 2013 at 4:57pm

That's a great way to put it Pat!  Here's to hoping!~ Melinda

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on April 21, 2013 at 7:11am

 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. 

• ▶ Reply