While you might not agree with them (and while I do think that certain individuals have gone an analogy too far in this thread), the mods on here are fairly reasonable, and being human, they have their own opinions. One of the appeals of this forum is that robust debate is allowed, encouraged even. In my experience, forums tend to be anarchic and ruled by the mob, or sanitised to the point of sterility; I'm sure BT is far from perfect, but mods generally have a light touch, but they still do their jobs. If you have a specific grievance, why not raise it with one of them, or with Tim? Don't forget; mods don't always have to be right (this bunch never are...), they only have to be reasonable.
I'm sorry but there is something wrong with anyone who believes the earth was created in 6 days given all the evidence to the contrary. There is something especially wrong with people who want to turn a country admired for its secular constitution and laws into a rabid warmongering theocracy. Don't blame me, blame the Republicuns, Dobson and Pat Robertson.
There is also something wrong with people who throw insults at others just because they disagree with their beliefs. You do not subscribe to Rev. Phelps' practices now, do you?
Well I clearly stated in a proceeding post that I "had overstepped my bounds". So don't start a tribunal now. I'm just a n00b here. :-/
Contrition means little if you then turn around and justify your behaviour in post #62. Loom is a bit late to the party to start making a fuss (so let it go, Loom), but you don't have to take up his invite to start squabbling again.
I was justifiying my derision of Evangelicals and Creationists, not necessarily the angry wording/rhetoric. I consider that lot to be on the same level as Wahabi Fundamentalists (Saudi Arabia's religious ideology) and I don't see why the over-sensitivity and political correctness should protect them while I'm sure very few would object to me calling Islamic fundamentalists "cretins" or "retards". While I regret my offensive wording, I don't believe I need to be polite to politically active authoritarian groups.
You can call anyone a cretin or retard, just not members of this forum (and to their face). Rules of polite discourse, and all that.
FFS! How many times to I have to say... Evangelicals are not an extremist branch of Christianity. They just have some specific beliefs that distinguish them from many other Christians. Fundamentalists tend to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and all the odd stuff.
Say it as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it true. You are wrong. "Evangelicals" is a catch-all grouping that includes members with both moderate and extremist views.
I'll not bother repeating the link that explains what Evangelicalism [really] is because it's probably too high-brow for you - you clearly prefer the authoritative tome that is Wikipedia. But by your own confession, you acknowledge that you pigeon-hole all evangelicals as extremists, even though you also acknowledge that some are not. I might pigeon-hole all people from South Yorkshire as paedophiles (a subject close to your heart), but I'd be wrong to generalise like that - the only thing that fits in pigeon-holes are pigeons. So lets stick to the ecclesiastical definition, and not what you read in The Daily Mail. So what *is* an Evangelical? Amongst other things, one who seeks to spread their faith, which quite neatly caters for Jerry Falwell. But there is not anything in Evangelicalism that promotes the literal interpretation of the bible nor a belief in Creationism. Only an ignorant bigot would continue to argue against this. Move on.
This has me written all over it! By now obviously a ridiculous statistic posted originally has become an argument where multiple people are saying the same thing but the focus is evangelicals for some reason. So let me start by summarizing the preceding posts. - It's ok to have differing views as long as you don't impose them upon others - Christians are stereotyped as imposers - The poll would suggest is a small way that Americans are bigoted 1. You should welcome peoples (passive) imposition of their views. It gives any well founded individual a chance to debate their perspective and their beliefs and if the other individual is of any value at all they will either competently counter of crumble with dignity. 2. In my life I've encountered imposers of many types mostly Christians and Atheists and people with very left or right wing opinions, it's the human condition, you should all be used to it. Like I've said previously, what confirmation is their in belief if there is no dissent? People seek this objection passionately, some do it politely. 3. The Poll: -Obviously derogatory and opinionated. -Offers no comparison by which meaningful data may be read. -Unspecific and lacks detail other than results based on opinions (how well do people know the term evangelical). -Obviously the term "evangelical" tends to carry different meanings to all sorts of people, in a sense this completely negates the value of positive (definition know) results. -Bigotry is an international phenomenon and can be found historically throughout the world. Here the US has a shorter and nicer history for those concerned. 4. There are only two people on this thread I would consider polite who are also active in this discussion, my congratulations goes to the both of you, you know who you are! 5. For all that may wonder, I'm probably more creationist than evolutionist at least in a very specific manner. Which was a decision made over several years, I'm not very religious and it's not a requirement for being creationist. I think the creationism vs. evolutionism is a debate for another thread, maybe someone should create one. My founding’s are based on Darwin’s origin of life theory (the lack of one) and some holes, also the fact that not too long ago the best educated individuals in the world believed honestly that the earth was flat now most people think it's round, and really educated individuals know that it's both and many more. I guess that what I'm saying is, I find it hard to believe that people can be so solid on their scientific opinions with that history to reflect on.
Good post. But just because I'm anal: - Darwinism is only a small building block of the theory of evolution. Of course it had holes in it. These have long since been filled but you'd have to go well beyond "Origin of the Species" to read about those. As for how inanimate matter could develop into life: check out prions. Is it life? Is it complex self-replicating molecules? Hmmm... evolution is a process independent of "life". - About the sperical Earth: Educated individuals believed, but the scientifically minded examined the empirical evidence. Similarly we have now found out that it is not exactly spherical, but that's just being anal.
Agreed, Darwinism is only a part of evolution, which is a much more complex study. I suppose my idea of life is an organism that is conscious in a "I think therefore I am" way. I think evolutionism is often misconstrued with atheism and I believe the origin of life is a more important question than "how'd all these monkey's get here!?" though that one's important to. These are fundamental questions to any person, so I'm trying to handle them as carefully as I can. As far as my spherical earth comment goes, I wasn't trying to suggest that people thought it was perfectly round or anything. I was elaborating on the next step in the evolution of that thought, which has to do with quantum mechanics. Basically in that study you reach the conclusion that the earth is all shapes, flat, round, even cubic. It's a lot like quantum proccesors where the data bit can equal 1, 2, or both at the same time. I wouldn't hassard a try at explaining all that, but I will point those interested in a good direction. "What the Bleep do we know?" A documentary that touches on many of the things I've talked about, not just the spherical earth thing either. I really recomend it, it's very well done and easy to understand as everythings presented very visually but they are not easy concepts. It gets a bit annoying though, just fyi.
Well, we "know" for a given value of "knowing". As long as planes take off, medicine cures illnesses and selective breeding yields better crops, it's good enough.
You might want to work on that definition, i can think of at least one group of "evangelicals" who would like to spread their brand of faith over Afghanistan and most of the world, they are also what one might describe as "extremist" or others might describe them as the Taliban.
It is not my definition to change. Unlike others, I'm not relying on my erroneous, pre-conceived and biased views to determine such a definition. I would suggest the quotes signify that is their label and that there may be some contention as to whether they are really Evangelicals. Well, this *does* sound like a trait of Evangelical Christians... But of course, you are trying to be clever, but entirely missing the points made earlier... Of course the Taliban (and many other groups) are evangelical, in that they seek to propagate their beliefs across the world. However, they are not Evangelical (as in believing in Evangelicalism). To my knowledge there is no tenet in Evangelicalism that advocates spreading the word by force, and killing all non-believers, or any of the other factors that distinguish the beliefs of the Taliban. So it's another lazy & ignorant comparison. There will be plenty of Evangelicals who are fascists. There will be plenty of Evangelicals who are communists. Equally there will be plenty of Evangelicals who are vegetarian, and plenty that eat meat. None of these issues are indicative of their Evangelicalism, so why do people persist in generalising about issues such as Creationism? The irony of this thread is that the title suggest that many Americans don't know what Evangelicalism is, but the reality is that most people don't know what it is. And sadly, even when presented with an explanation, they persist in maintaining their biased and prejudiced views. On a sliding scale of Christendom, the Evangelicals are firmly in the middle between the Modern Liberals and the Fundamentalists.
Sounds like you are an expert at determining what is opinionated and derogatory, but this was reported by CBN in case you didn't see that. (CBN = Christian Broadcasting Network) It kind of sounds that you are being opinionated yourself in this respect. Ellison has the complete study available online if you want to read it. http://www.ellisonresearch.com/releases/0908_ERWhitePaper.pdf
It doesn't take much review to see the real nature of this study. On one hand it offeres a vague insight into what vague generalities americans have filed evangelicals, vaguely. On the otherhand it's a study where Ellison tried to catagorize peoples opinions and wound up with this study where numerical values are almost laughable. Point in hand, these people made the same catagory: 1. “A charismatic Christian, not afraid to worship raising hands in the air and/or clapping to more upbeat worship music.” 2. “A born again, conservative, fundamentalist Christian.” You tell me what this is supposed to mean, all I can derive is that Americans simply are clueless about evangelicals. So I guess the real question is, does it even matter? Yes there are many evangelical organizations, but are they really effecting the election? Probably not. Americans always raise an eybrow or two when someone gets preachy, or when an organization has a title like evangelical in it. Broadcasters and viewers alike have been happy to throw the term about, and subsiquently it's been beaten to death and I doubt that it holds much definable value in the american public. As far as me being opinionated about the CBN, you bet I am. I've read enough from them over the years to learn my lesson so now I distance myself as much as possible. This 'study' only goes further to aid their departure from journalism, and my respect. As far as deragatory, I think this article and this study went little further than to suggest once again that Americans are simply uneducated, hence deragatory.
