What is an evangelical anyway?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lastly, evangelicals for the most part, are fully involved in proselytizing (conversion). They are active in engaging the conversion experience. To sum up, Evangelical Christians take their Christianity very serious and to a large degree more than their counterparts—mainline Christians.

That essentially says what i did. There is a difference between practicing Christians and name-only Christians... I have heard them referred to as "Sunday Christians." Their faith is weak; they do not believe the Bible except where it suits them, and despite their appearance in a church building every Sunday, they will deny Jesus if Jesus becomes inconvenient.

I find it ironic that these Sunday Christians (I reject the term "Mainline Christians" because it implies that such dominate a religion they do not actively practice) are the very cause of so much consternation among non-Christians ("That preacher goes out and gets drunk in strip bars all the time, then preaches against drinking and sex!") and yet the common presentation of the religion is that those who do not do such things are somehow the ones to be avoided at all costs.

Ironic, or maybe telling would be a better word.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That essentially says what i did.

It also aligns with what I said and the reason I find most of them to be insufferable. No one wants to be precached to in casual company.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: infolurker

The new "meaning" of Evangelical Christian is generally a Protestant Christian who will not compromise their faith and accept all this Progressive non-sense, perversion, and degeneracy and sticks to their beliefs.

The leftist HATE this type of Christian because they will not give in or compromise their beliefs and either agree with them or shut up about it.

That's where I am going with this as well. And, since many who are demonizing "evangelical Christians" are elected government officials, is that not violating the First Amendment?

That's why I say we should correct this redundancy at every step. No good can come of it.

TheRedneck

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion.

What many atheists/anti-theists can't seem to wrap their brains around is that you cannot have anything resembling a free society without something akin to the first amendment that keeps government out of religion and keeps them from creating a national religion.

Without a first amendment, no one, including atheists, will be able to choose what they believe and what they don't. It's a simple concept, but it seems to escape them.

a reply to: Klassified

It is just a descriptive word to many Christians, but is often used in a derogatory way by non-Christians.

And therein lies the danger.

The word may have shifted meaning over time; that's actually not unusual. However, the meaning shift only happened to part of the population. As I stated in my OP, my response to "are you evangelical?" would be yes, because I will talk to and witness to others. I simply do not try to force my faith on others, as I have found that a great many of those who hate Christianity had someone try to force it upon them at some point.

But when I answer yes, who decides which meaning I intended, the original or the new? And how do they decide? Based on what they want me to mean? How is that even remotely logical or ethical? it is simply a method used to demonize me if those I answered choose to.

I will no longer answer that question on polls. I will explain why it is inappropriate and unanswerable, but that is all.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Klassified

It also seems to escape them that your beliefs and personal philosophy form the foundation for who you are/how you think and behave.

So you cannot have a government of atheists without their personal belief system (atheism) informing their decision making any more than you can have one with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, et al, without those various faiths informing those legislators' personal decision making processes. However, just because that happens doesn't mean they are legislating this, that, or the other faith system; it only means those personal beliefs formed a foundation or at least part of it.

I suspect they do know it because they seem to be fine with the notion of people like Nancy Pelosi and Uncle Joe who at least pretend to be Catholic in positions of power.

Don't know. But in my opinion if the early church was acting as belligerent and demanding screaming about "their rights"...
Rome would have probably crucified the lot of them.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It has been my experience that those who constantly preach to others no matter the circumstances are those who drive people away from God.

I know they exist; they bother me as well. But should I be lumped in with them? I do not do what they do. There is a time and a place to talk spiritual and as I said, no one can be forced to come to Jesus. It must be of one's free will.

I believe I am being lumped in with them.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But should I be lumped in with them? I do not do what they do.

Then no, but that is their self-stated mission.

originally posted by: dawnstar
Don't know. But in my opinion if the early church was acting as belligerent and demanding screaming about "their rights"...
Rome would have probably crucified the lot of them.

Ummm, Rome did its damnedest mainly because they refused to acknowledge the deity of the Roman emperor.

a reply to: ketsuko

I have always considered a religion to be a set of beliefs about spirituality and afterlife. Therefore, atheism qualifies as a religion. An atheist's belief it that any spirituality if either nonexistent or comes from themselves, and any afterlife is either reincarnation or a fairy tale.

That qualifies as a religion. All religions are not required to have a specific deity, nor is it written anywhere that one cannot think they are their own deity.

However, stating such in public will cause a great deal of consternation. Most atheists simply cannot accept that they have personal beliefs it seems.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
A loudmouth religious kook who is not content being happy with their beliefs but instead needs to constantly remind you of their faith.

Sort of like vegans or cross fitters.

Amen to that. The history of religions, particularly Christianity, is violent and brutal. Christianity is based on an act of violence. Every church has a cross with a dead man hanging from it. That's the role model. If aliens ever show up and observe Christian behavior and beliefs, they'd conclude that Earthlings are naturally violent.
Please keep your religious beliefs to YOURSELF and stop forcing others to "convert".

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then no, but that is their self-stated mission.

But I am, apparently, being lumped into that group.

Do you see my issue now?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's more that the angry ones cannot accept that they have a faith too, even if it is faith in nothing or faith in self. To me, there is nothing scary about faith, nor is it exclusively religious in nature. It's what you have faith in that defines that.

a reply to: dawnstar

But in my opinion if the early church was acting as belligerent and demanding screaming about "their rights"...

Are you saying someone who is religious should not have rights?

That sounds eerily like establishment if a national religion, if atheism can indeed be considered a religion.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But I am, apparently, being lumped into that group.

Do you see my issue now?

Guilt by association is a thing, particularly in the context of the quote I supplied. I would wager that person does not think you are a 'real' Evangelical if you're not out trying to convert people.

Jesus told us what the two greatest commandments were, yet every religion, every church, every Christian, every believer neglects to make those two commandments foremost in their life. If they did, there would be no need for endless, often heated discussions over semantics, and the world would be a much better place for it.

JMHO

a reply to: Phantom423

The history of religions, particularly Christianity, is violent and brutal. Christianity is based on an act of violence. Every church has a cross with a dead man hanging from it. That's the role model.

Ummm....

Every religion has had episodes with fanatics going too far. Certainly Christianity is no exception, but I think it is disingenuous to try and attribute the majority of religious evils based on a depiction of a martyr who was murdered by anti-Christians without cause.

I haven't seen many Christians blowing places up lately while screaming "God is Great!" But it wasn't long ago some Muslims did actually blow places up while screaming "Allah Akbar!"*

* That's Arabic for "God is Great!"

I'll also point out the deaths that occurred under Adolph Hitler (secular), Joseph Stalin (secular), and plenty of other completely non-religious leaders. As a matter of fact Russia seems to be quite secular. Do those deaths being claimed in Ukraine not matter now?

How about we at least try to keep it real?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

religious evils based on a depiction of a martyr who was murdered by anti-Christians without cause.

There were no Christians when Jesus was murdered. Jesus was a nice Jewish boy who got himself mixed up on the wrong side of politics. Christianity didn't come into being until much later. And much of their doctrine is totally made up by the Church. Catholics have all sorts of occult superstitions that have nothing to do with Jesus - holy water, magic bones from dead saints, communion which is tantamount to cannibalism.

Hitler and Nazism delved into the occult. That's a religion, even if it's just crackpots.

I point to Christians, particularly the Catholics, because their history is horribly violent. Yes, other religions have had their day in the sun, but Christians certainly take the cake.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Guilt by association is a thing, particularly in the context of the quote I supplied. I would wager that person does not think you are a 'real' Evangelical if you're not out trying to convert people.

Did I say I wasn't trying to convert people? Of course I am. But only those who wish to learn what i have. It makes no sense to try and harvest a crop that hasn't sprung up from the seeds yet.

If someone asks me about my religion or how I manage to stay so happy despite all the turmoil around me, I answer them. That's evangelical. Sometimes I manage to get them into a good church; sometimes not. Either way i tried, and I did it without forcing myself on anybody. If someone has a problem with that, then they have a problem with not just me, but every real Christian in existence. If that someone is using their official position as a government official to solve that problem, then everyone who believes in freedom has a problem.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The link makes it clear it should be proactive in nature.