My beef with evangelicals - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 08-07-2006, 08:37 PM

are essentially threefold.

First, they present themselves poorly in the national debate. With Jerry Falwell, Tammy Baker and the like as your spokepersons, you start to lose credibility out of the shoot.

Second, their overemphasis on grace, which in my mind dilutes the necessity to obey the commandments and to repent. Based on some data, I see little empirical evidence that evangelicals take their proclamations to heart. It seems to more cultural, more political, than a religion of convictions. That may sound odd given how much time some of them waste on anti-abortion efforts, but I'm stating how much emotion somebody invests, but how much conviction to the point of action in furtherance of self-discipline.

Third, the lack of a culture which assimilates and explains. The Catholics, the Jews, and even the Muslim to some extent, possess a culture, and academics that examine the world and the world of philosophy from their viewpoints. To a large extent, evangelicals eschew academic explanation. It can never be a substitute for conviction, but the absence thereof also points to an absence of substance.

You may have different experiences, but mine with evangelicals have been uniformly negative.

Many of the oppositions to the Church building temples have come from the evangelicals.

Much of interdenominational bigotry is sponsored by evangelicals.

It doesn't appear to be a living breathing religion. It's almost as if it's more political dogma than way of life. Feel free to disagree, because obviously some of my words are intended to be caricatures of caricatures.

MikeWaters · 08-07-2006, 09:15 PM

it's been a while since I talked with an evangelical. maybe the last one was a med student, a year ahead of me. he offended probably everyone in the medical school with his aggressive tactics.

i think the evangelical strain appeals to the mullah-types. the ones that want a strict doctrine, black and white, that separates them from everyone else.

SeattleUte · 08-07-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it's been a while since I talked with an evangelical. maybe the last one was a med student, a year ahead of me. he offended probably everyone in the medical school with his aggressive tactics.

i think the evangelical strain appeals to the mullah-types. the ones that want a strict doctrine, black and white, that separates them from everyone else.

I thought you went to an evangelical med school.

MikeWaters · 08-07-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I thought you went to an evangelical med school.

My school was/is 100% secular with no connection to the Baptists.

Baylor Col of Med was never in Waco. Started in Dallas, then moved to Houston in 1943.

It then split from Baylor Univ. in 1969.

There is no connection (since 1969) between BCM and BU.

And I'm not sure it is fair to say Baptist = evangelical anyway.

SeattleUte · 08-07-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

My school was/is 100% secular with no connection to the Baptists.

Baylor Col of Med was never in Waco. Started in Dallas, then moved to Houston in 1943.

It then split from Baylor Univ. in 1969.

There is no connection (since 1969) between BCM and BU.

And I'm not sure it is fair to say Baptist = evangelical anyway.

Evangelicals and Southern Baptists pretty much overlap. Southern Baptists' origins are illuminating. A schism developed between Baptists and what would become Southern Baptists over the slavery issue.

Archaea · 08-07-2006, 11:32 PM

Link to Baptist traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

How does a Baptist deal with the authority issue for baptism and the last supper?

I've never heard a logical explanation on that one.

The Apostolic traditions make more sense.

SeattleUte · 08-07-2006, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Link to Baptist traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

How does a Baptist deal with the authority issue for baptism and the last supper?

I've never heard a logical explanation on that one.

The Apostolic traditions make more sense.

Easy. They simply don't accept the authority paradigm. That paradigm only exits in Chatholicism and Mormonism. Just because you take it for granted doesn't mean everyone else thinks it makes perfect sense. It's just a belief, dogma, like all the rest of it. Just because you or others who believe it believe it doesn't make it so for everyone. It's what you believe, so it's so for you; they believe something else, so it's not so for them. You each have your own distinct truth. And please don't cite the Bible to me as support for your belief.

Archaea · 08-08-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Easy. They simply don't accept the authority paradigm. That paradigm only exits in Chatholicism and Mormonism. Just because you take it for granted doesn't mean everyone else thinks it makes perfect sense. It's just a belief, dogma, like all the rest of it. Just because you or others who believe it believe it doesn't make it so for everyone. It's what you believe, so it's so for you; they believe something else, so it's not so for them. You each have your own distinct truth. And please don't cite the Bible to me as support for your belief.

Well, I'd like a non-believer's take on this.

If you are stating that some sacrament or ordinance is necessary, how does one come by the authority necessary to perform the ordinance?

For example, if I determine that an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington is necessary to enforce in Seattle, I can't claim to be the District Court Judge just because I went to law school or just because I decided it would be a good idea.

Apostolic lineage is a rational course of dealing. Now whether it exists or continued to exist is a logical argument.

However, I don't even understand the paradigm that it is necessary to be baptized and to receive the sacramental ordinance. An ordinance requires authority? By definition it does.

I have never understood the answer to that question. I've heard, but still stand there scratching my head.

I can understand a paradigm that says God doesn't need ordinances and neither do we. But once you state an ordinance is necessary, then the logical question is who must perform it?

The Baptists have never given a logical explanation. And no I don't need a scriptural argument.

MikeWaters · 08-08-2006, 12:26 AM

I think they would argue that where a couple of believers are gathered, God is with them, as is the authority.

While we have an idea of authority, I don't know that it is spelled out that way in the New Testament.

So I don't really follow that our logic is really logic. It's just *a* way that to me isn't anymore particularly inducive of faith than then Baptist way.

And that is why people rarely "logic" themselves into the church.

Archaea · 08-08-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think they would argue that where a couple of believers are gathered, God is with them, as is the authority.

While we have an idea of authority, I don't know that it is spelled out that way in the New Testament.

So I don't really follow that our logic is really logic. It's just *a* way that to me isn't anymore particularly inducive of faith than then Baptist way.

And that is why people rarely "logic" themselves into the church.

And that answer always perplexed me. A couple of believers get together, now you can say you are authorized to act on behalf of God of the Universe.

Nothing I know ever works that way.

If you were a subject of England and you wanted to do something on behalf of the King, you needed his imprimatur.

How a believer suddenly acquires authority by believing makes no sense to me.

To which the Evangelical will respond, you just gotta have faith. And ponzis are legitimate investment vehicles as well.

08-07-2006, 08:37 PM	#1
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	My beef with evangelicals are essentially threefold. First, they present themselves poorly in the national debate. With Jerry Falwell, Tammy Baker and the like as your spokepersons, you start to lose credibility out of the shoot. Second, their overemphasis on grace, which in my mind dilutes the necessity to obey the commandments and to repent. Based on some data, I see little empirical evidence that evangelicals take their proclamations to heart. It seems to more cultural, more political, than a religion of convictions. That may sound odd given how much time some of them waste on anti-abortion efforts, but I'm stating how much emotion somebody invests, but how much conviction to the point of action in furtherance of self-discipline. Third, the lack of a culture which assimilates and explains. The Catholics, the Jews, and even the Muslim to some extent, possess a culture, and academics that examine the world and the world of philosophy from their viewpoints. To a large extent, evangelicals eschew academic explanation. It can never be a substitute for conviction, but the absence thereof also points to an absence of substance. You may have different experiences, but mine with evangelicals have been uniformly negative. Many of the oppositions to the Church building temples have come from the evangelicals. Much of interdenominational bigotry is sponsored by evangelicals. It doesn't appear to be a living breathing religion. It's almost as if it's more political dogma than way of life. Feel free to disagree, because obviously some of my words are intended to be caricatures of caricatures. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

08-07-2006, 11:32 PM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Link to Baptist traditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist How does a Baptist deal with the authority issue for baptism and the last supper? I've never heard a logical explanation on that one. The Apostolic traditions make more sense. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

08-07-2006, 09:15 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	it's been a while since I talked with an evangelical. maybe the last one was a med student, a year ahead of me. he offended probably everyone in the medical school with his aggressive tactics. i think the evangelical strain appeals to the mullah-types. the ones that want a strict doctrine, black and white, that separates them from everyone else.

08-08-2006, 12:26 AM	#9
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I think they would argue that where a couple of believers are gathered, God is with them, as is the authority. While we have an idea of authority, I don't know that it is spelled out that way in the New Testament. So I don't really follow that our logic is really logic. It's just a way that to me isn't anymore particularly inducive of faith than then Baptist way. And that is why people rarely "logic" themselves into the church.