Quoting Michael Scott (luv@inoz.net):
Wow!! I mean, wow!!
2000 odd years of biblical scholarship, and Rick has all the answers!
I meant to respond to the ignorance of Russell, his raving opinions based on ignorance. I applaud Rick for calling Russell on his lack of knowledge, but I question his own OPINION-based conclusions, presented as FACT.
I actually do _not_ acknowledge any obligation to bow and scrape with frequently inserted disclaimers to the effect that 'THis is just the best present understanding of a non-Christian, Californian, English-speaking, non-koine-Greek-speaking, barely Hebrew-literate, heathen who happens to have read the Bible as a necessary part of a well-rounded Western education, and has views that he believes are reaasonably well founded but other people doubtless will differ. As you would seem to imply otherwise, sod off. ;-> If your point is that not everyone agrees on basic tenets of religion, and question what other people consider established fact, then, gosh, Michael, I am shocked! Shocked! At gambling in this casino.</Casablanca> I mean, really? You have an opinion on religion and therefore think the entire world should not accept _my_ view? How long did it take you to arrive at this earth-shaking epiphany, sir?
Russell, hypocrisy screams from your post. YOU criticise evangelicals, while evangalising your own opinions.
While I'm at it, Trent cited something out of Wikipedia saying that about 25% of Americans self-identify as 'evangelical', or something like that. What I wanted to add is that, if you'll pardon the metaphor, the devil's in the details. The term 'evangelical' means diferent things to different people. Strictly speaking, the root word 'evangelise', from the Greek 'euangelizesthai', just means seeking to persuade others to adopt a view of religion, to be a salesman for it. _Some_ people who so self-designate doubtless are like the Southern Baptists described in the article and hold views antithetical to social-mission-oriented normal Christianity, but whether that is the same as the 25% claimed at Trent's link is a different question. Trent's point that you cannot extrapolate from 25% of the American people to determine what a 'majority of Americans' think and do is, however, nonetheless key, and I greatly applaud and share his point.
While I don't support southern evangelicals, purely because of their ignorant teachings, Christians are INSTRUCTED to evangelise, to spread the Word, so a blanket criticism of "evangelicals", while evangelising your opinion, is simply hypocritical.
So, basically, you're an evangelical, non-Southern-USA-psychotic subtype, who doesn't like mean things being said about evangelicalism (which you somehow conflate with evangelism, which of course is NOT the same thing), because you might somehow feel slighted. Why am I not surprised?