Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You can be kind to someone while still calling for them to come to justice. You can be forgiving while still calling for restoration of damages. God doesn’t just ignore our sins; He calls us to account for and repent of them and provides us with a pathway to absolution. Subsets of our society not on the wrong end of past abuses, however, would prefer to forget these sins and pretend as if they did no lasting harm. But acquiescing to that attitude is neither kind nor forgiving. It’s cruel and unjust and favors the powerful over the weak.
You did. They are both mentioned in the article.I read the OP and did not see any names named. Did I miss Trump in this OP?
Thanks.You did. They are both mentioned in the article.
What’s the false equivalence? Perhaps a matter of opinion?No, he’s doing just the opposite. He’s implying that they and their supporters and their supporters’ behavior are equivalent or comparable, when they aren’t.
Oh, sure it is. The broadly dismissive attitudes towards social justice, the false equivalence between Trump and Obama and their supporters, the feigned ignorance of the definition of white evangelicalism (it’s evangelical denominations dominated by white people), his misapplication of Eph 4:32 to decry addressing past sins... That’s ALL political. If he wants to complain about the wors “evangelical” being co-opted or twisted or turned into a pejorative, fine. That’s a perfectly valid complaint. But the argument he’s using to make that complaint is almost entirely political and so grossly flawed as to be laughable. In his view, it’s apparently unkind to rehash sins of the past, but he says nothing about the white evangelicals who 1) deny those things happened, 2) acknowledge they happened but deny the extent of their impact, or 3) continue to harbor attitudes and/or advocate policies that perpetuate the same injustices.
I read several other pieces of his just for context, and they all have a similar vibe, where he’ll politely cricitize sjw’s b employing a host of strawmen and unbelievable ignorances.
Perhaps this?Hammster...maybe you can explain what point you see the article is making?
tulc(because he's at something of a loss)
This is admirable cancel culture tactics but really does not address the article.Yes, it does. I addressed in this post his misapplication of Eph 4:32 and his complaints about how the word evangelical is being used.
From his facebook page:
“The Obamas are buying a $15M mansion, while their supporters are fighting for $15 an hour. Y'all got played.”Those are all political (as are some of the pics he posted that I didn’t include). I went back to about April on Facebook and I skimmed over a bunch of his blog posts and found almost zero acknowledgment that there was even any validity at all to liberal or sjw concerns, whether or not he agreed with their methods or conclusions. That’s not the way a person merely filtering things through the gospel would write. That’s how somebody filtering things through politics writes.
“I find it ironic that the political party most responsible for slavery enduring as long as it did in America, is the same one that is advocating for reparations. Of course, they 're not sincere in their advocacy, but it makes for good politics. Democrats know full well of their history of being complicit in the oppression of blacks in America, not only by way of slavery but Jim Crow, the "Black Codes," and the post-Reconstruction peonage system in the South. These are unarguable facts. So why hold hearings on reparations? I mean, when you know already that you're guilty as sin, so to speak, why the dog-and-pony show? Why not just cut to the chase and cut the check?”
“In the short time I’ve been here (3 months), one of the best things I’ve found about living in California is being able to walk into a barber shop and not see pictures of Barack Obama hanging on all the walls.”
The Fallacy of Gun Control as a Means of Behavior Change
100% agree. I think the article shows only one side of the coin is getting the constant judgment and ire.Because filtering things through the gospel would inevitably show that both sides of most issues have both failings and legitimate grievances.
God is bigger than we can ever be. When God forgives He no longer sees our sins. They are as far as the East is from the West. No matter how hard we try we never forget because the flesh won’t.Actually, if you forgive someone, you do not call for restoration of damages. That’s not how Christ deals with us.
And you are somewhat right. God didn’t ignore our sins. He sent His Son to atone for them because we could not.
Just so I know how to respond, how does this relate to the OP?I never thought of "Evangelical" as being "Rebranded Fundamentalism" but it makes a great deal of sense considering that I never saw much if any difference between the two. I don't really have much good to say about either one. If they ever had a real Christian witness to begin with, it's been completely destroyed in their marriage to Donald Trump.
Just so I know how to respond, how does this relate to the OP?
Okay. Let me know if you want to discuss the OP.Fundamentalists have hijacked the term "evangelical" for their own political purpose. "Evangelical" used to have something to do with spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, but now it is nothing more than a political label, and not an upstanding one.
Okay. Let me know if you want to discuss the OP.
Okay. Let me know if you want to discuss the OP.
Nope. But it would be nice to discuss what was said in the OP.Is "discussing the OP" a codephrase for "agree with Hammster"?
You may want to read the OP again.The subject of the OP is the hijacking of the term “evangelical” for political purposes. @bekkilyn’s post could hardly be more on-topic.
You may want to read the OP again.
What she said didn’t address anything in the OP. Since you’ve abandoned our discussion in order to take up her cause, if you see it differently, then feel free to explain.I made sure to re-read it before making that post. I stand by what I wrote. If you disagree, perhaps you could explain why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?