https://www.politicalorphans.com/the-article-removed-from-forbes-why-white-e... This article explains why most Americans don't read the Bible. -- Sent from my Huawei Mate 9 with K-9 Mail.
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
https://www.politicalorphans.com/the-article-removed-from-forbes-why-white-e...
This article explains why most Americans don't read the Bible.
As a correction, the article says and implies nothing whatsoever about 'most Americans', and you cannot reasonably draw conclusions about the majority of 325 million Americans from it -- for the simple reason that it's about _evangelicals_. Who are a subculture. If I might meta-comment for a moment, here, Russell, you have long made a habit of this sort of sloppy extrapolation, particularly but not exclusively when you are far outside your areas of competence. Back to the (excellent) article: As it happens, I am not personally, and have never been, any variety of Christian (nor any other kind of theist), but I know and largely respect Christianity (with some reservations) in its major mainline denominational forms, by which I mean the ones outside of the evangelical subculture. You can trace the themes from the New Testament's figure of Jesus clearly in those major denominations, overlaid with the institutional changes made by Saul of Tarsus (yclept 'Saint Paul'), and then the familiar evolution over the centuries as Christianity went through distortions from power dynamics interacting with 'The Church' and then with the splintering branches of the Orthodox Church factions, the Roman Catholics, the various mainline Protestant denominations, and various not-too-insane outliers. I can look at the nature of thought among the Lutherans on my agnostic father's side (from Norway), and on my atheist mother's Congregationalist side (from England and the Netherlands), and see the commonality and the differences -- while seeing, thoughout, the clear connection to the heritage from the (allegedly historical, but historicity doesn't matter in this context) figure of Jesus and his teachings. I can see the actual intellectual tradition of Catholicism and how it differs (e.g., greater stress on good works, rather than just faith) and think it actually more honestly Jesus-like than the other. But the point is, they're all distinctively genuine Christianity descended from the biblical text as variously interpreted. And then there's the evangelicals, who are totally out of step, and make anyone familiar with the New Testiment perennially rub his or her head and say 'WTF? This isn't the least bit like Christianity.' You get monstrosities like the so-called 'prosperity Gospel' notions, which have absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel, and everything to do with justifying shunning and condemning the poor and unfortunate, rather than living to serve and help them. As author Chris Ladd says, all of the ethical principles of Christianity get discarded and turned upside-down. Instead of a biblical mission, you see 'I got mine, Jack' Zig Zigler salesmanship of 'Pray with us and you'll get rich and be happy.' You get toxic misogyny the likes of which even Saul of Tarsus could never dream of on his worst days. The message of compassion gets totally discarded and stomped on. As author Chris Ladd says, the core of this vile thing, evangelicalism, is in the former slaveholding Confederacy states, the Old South, although there are smaller tendrils of the evangelical denominations everywhere, even here in California. If you bother to look at a map, you'll please note that the ex-Confederacy, even if you include Texas that never completely bought into that conspiracy against the USA while nonetheless joining it, is only a small chunk on the southeast side of the continent. 325 million Americans in 50 states plus American Samoa, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam, and other minor holdings constitute a much, much bigger United States, in most of which, Old South twisted thinking is considered pretty alien. When I encounter apparent evangelicals, I maintain perfect politeness, but what I'm thinking is 'Wow, you guys are kind of totally not-Christian. You might as well go full-lunatic and be Mormons or Scientologists, because you're almost there, already.' I'm hardly the first American to think 'We shouldn't have defeated and reabsorbed the Southern states. Hell, we should have kicked their sorry asses out and said "Good riddance."' The sentiment is often felt. Alas, as we didn't do that, we're stuck with this retrograde, somewhat fitfully insane region that periodically must be wrestled with and fights progress. Where one of the dominant strains of alleged Christianity is so little like any normal Christianity that it seems from another, and regrettable, planet. But never, Russell, never, please, and certainly never again, confuse the brokenness of the Old South and its bizarre anti-Christianity with the United States as a whole. It's really offensive, in exactly the way that only you, in your Dunning-Krueger wowzering mode, can manage. I read the Bible, both the Tanakh of the Jews and the New Testament of Christianity, and I'm not even a tiny bit religious. The members of my Sons of Norway lodge (of which I'm president) read the Bible and know it well because they're mostly Lutherans. Most American Christians read the Bible, on account of being recognisably Christians in the normal sense. The large faction of non-religious Americans tend to read the Bible for the reasons I first did, that it's historically pivotal in Europe-descended countries, and because historical translations into English such as the KJV were one of two pillars of the creation of the modern English language, right alongside Shakespeare. So, don't tell us that Americans don't read the Bible, because you're simply mistaken, and moreover that isn't even a thing author Chris Ladd even said or implied. It's the evangelicals who don't. And they are out of step. (Well, I hear that Catholics are also mildly discouraged from reading the Bible outside of the guidance of the Church, which is understandable as a power dynamic, given the schisms that happened before when people did that.)
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 11:23:39 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
https://www.politicalorphans.com/the-article-removed-from-forbes-why-white -evangelicalism-is-so-cruel/
This article explains why most Americans don't read the Bible.
As a correction, the article says and implies nothing whatsoever about 'most Americans', and you cannot reasonably draw conclusions about the majority of 325 million Americans from it -- for the simple reason that it's about _evangelicals_. Who are a subculture.
People who identify as "evangelicals" are a very large subculture. Using the word "subculture" in this context seems misleading as it seems to imply that they are small and lack influence. While both Furries and Catholics could be described as "subcultures" we all know who has the most influence on how the world is run and it's definitely not Furries.
If I might meta-comment for a moment, here, Russell, you have long made a habit of this sort of sloppy extrapolation, particularly but not exclusively when you are far outside your areas of competence.
I don't think that knowledge of Christian based religions is outside my area of competence. I was raised as a Christian, attended multiple "Christian" schools, and read the entire Bible apart from Psalms before I was 9. I have had many discussions of religion with people who identify as "Christian", most of whom reject the teachings of Jesus.
And then there's the evangelicals, who are totally out of step, and make anyone familiar with the New Testiment perennially rub his or her head and say 'WTF? This isn't the least bit like Christianity.'
You get monstrosities like the so-called 'prosperity Gospel' notions, which have absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel, and everything to do with justifying shunning and condemning the poor and unfortunate, rather than living to serve and help them. As author Chris Ladd says, all of the ethical principles of Christianity get discarded and turned upside-down. Instead of a biblical mission, you see 'I got mine, Jack' Zig Zigler salesmanship of 'Pray with us and you'll get rich and be happy.' You get toxic misogyny the likes of which even Saul of Tarsus could never dream of on his worst days. The message of compassion gets totally discarded and stomped on.
If this was just Evangelicals doing their own thing it would be different. But my observations of Christians in other denominations is that they are unwilling to call out the evil of Evangelicalism. If you identify as a fan of Star Wars someone will query you about some aspect of the series to determine if you are a true SW fan (this especially applies to women). If you identify as a Christian then other Christians won't ask if you know anything about the Bible.
As author Chris Ladd says, the core of this vile thing, evangelicalism, is in the former slaveholding Confederacy states, the Old South, although there are smaller tendrils of the evangelical denominations everywhere, even here in California. If you bother to look at a map, you'll please note that the ex-Confederacy, even if you include Texas that never completely bought into that conspiracy against the USA while nonetheless joining it, is only a small chunk on the southeast side of the continent. 325 million Americans in 50 states plus American Samoa, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam, and other minor holdings constitute a much, much bigger United States, in most of which, Old South twisted thinking is considered pretty alien.
Yet the ideas of "southern Christians" have spread. We have had people on this mailing list advocating "prosperity theology" and saying that women who are raped should "accept a share of the blame". I even had a LUV member send me links to Jack Chick comics after a previous discussion about religion!
But never, Russell, never, please, and certainly never again, confuse the brokenness of the Old South and its bizarre anti-Christianity with the United States as a whole. It's really offensive, in exactly the way that only you, in your Dunning-Krueger wowzering mode, can manage.
LOL. Do you not know who won the last presidential election? Sure he didn't win the majority vote, but he got close enough that every decent American should be very embarassed.
So, don't tell us that Americans don't read the Bible, because you're simply mistaken, and moreover that isn't even a thing author Chris Ladd even said or implied. It's the evangelicals who don't. And they are out of step.
OK, I'll CC you next time I get into an email discussion with people who identify as "Christians" but not "evangelicals" who obviously haven't read the Bible. ;)
(Well, I hear that Catholics are also mildly discouraged from reading the Bible outside of the guidance of the Church, which is understandable as a power dynamic, given the schisms that happened before when people did that.)
While Catholics are world-renowned for opposing abortion I don't recall ever being in an online debate about it with them. At the moment I can't think of any example of a Catholic not knowing about some aspect of their religion and caring about it. If someone says "I don't know much about the Bible and just try to be a good persion" then that's fair enough IMHO. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting russell@coker.com.au (russell@coker.com.au):
People who identify as "evangelicals" are a very large subculture.
No, they are not a very 'large subculture', not compared to, say, stamp-collectors. Besides, you are moving the goalposts. You had the gall to make a sweeping generalisation, in profound ignorance, about 'most Americans' not reading the Bible, based on your lazy-ass overinterpretation of a polemic (albeit an excellent one) recently removed from the Forbes magazine Web site that -- as an incidental fact -- said absolutely nothing about knowledge of the Bible. You committed polemical overreach on several different grounds, and I called you on it. Attempting after the fact the point of contention was whether the evangelical subculture is 'large' or not is transparent obfuscation, and frankly looks a great deal like your reacting to being in a hole by furiously digging.
Using the word "subculture" in this context seems misleading as it seems to imply that they are small and lack influence.
I neither said nor implied that, and I note, once again, a convenient and slightly devious attempt on your part to change the subject (understandably, I know, because your statements were stupid and untenable, so it's expedient to deflect and distract). Sorry, Russell, that was just not the point at all. What I said was a point of statistical inference, that it was absurd to extrapolate from a subculture, particularly one concentrated heavily in the Old South, to 'most Americans' -- leaving completely aside the dubious leap of logic you needed to reach your handwave about Bible-reading, which has no real foundation in the cited article. For purposes of my statistical point about it being utterly irrational to extrapolate from a regionally-linked subculture to 'most Americans', it is completely irrelevant, and a suspiciously convenient smokescreen, for you to now suddenly want to debate what _type_ of subculture it is. That's completely irrelevant to the point, and I'm not going to participate in your attempt to distract and deflect now that I blew up your poor logic, sloppy thinking, and -- ironically -- apparently paltry knowledge of the Bible. I'm not going to spend more time fisking the rest of your post, because at a quick glance it looks like more distracting, deflecting, chamging the subject, and ignoring the point. I'm not going to play that game, as it is vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher. Just one thing:
I don't think that knowledge of Christian based religions is outside my area of competence.
Of course you don't. That's how Dunning-Kreuger Syndrome works. (See also D.J. Trump, Toddler-in-Chief.)
LOL. Do you not know who won the last presidential election?
Hillary Rodham Clinton, but then vote manipulation in several key states illegally changed the result. Russell, do NOT have the unmitigated gall to lecture me about my own country. Have you learned nothing from having me pin your ears back a few hours ago? If so, I do not volunteer to conduct remedial education on you, as I have many more fruitful pursuits on which to lavish my limited lifetime. Good luck. With someone else. And fsck off with the transpacific wowserism, by the way.
On 2018-03-15 06:36, Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, but then vote manipulation in several key states illegally changed the result.
Ooh, interesting. I hadn't heard this before; I was under the impression it was just a broken electoral system that caused the result. Was this by disenfranchising the poor via voter id requirements, or good old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing? Cheers, Paul
Quoting Paul Dwerryhouse (paul@dwerryhouse.com.au):
On 2018-03-15 06:36, Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, but then vote manipulation in several key states illegally changed the result.
Ooh, interesting. I hadn't heard this before; I was under the impression it was just a broken electoral system that caused the result.
Was this by disenfranchising the poor via voter id requirements, or good old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing?
There were quite a number of elements to how this was done, and not merely through the highly indirect and less totally illegal deployment of Russian software bots and stolen real online identities as a force-multiplier on social media (though they certainly did that). Part of it was direct break-in to election authority computing facilities, which permitted both some jiggering of vote totals in key places such as Wisconsin and data-mining about both the voting protocols and about the electorate. The latter was used to selectively purge inconveniently-inclined voters -- qualified, legal voters -- off of voting rolls a month or two before the November general election. The data-mined information was also used for not-exactly-vote-manipulation-as-such-but-probably-illegal targeted private lobbying of particular likely voters, profiled courtesy in part of information stolen by Russian hackers from the voting authorities, to induce them to stay home and not vote for Secretary Clinton. E.g., particular black Democratic Party voters were privately IM'ed URLs with propaganda descriptions purporting to prove that Secretary Clinton was bigoted against blacks, cherry-picking some ill-advised things either then-First Lady Clinton or President Bill Clinton said about African-American 'supercriminals' back during the crime wave of the early 1990s. The exact methods for doing many of these thinga was at least partially deniable if you didn't have the overall picture about _why_ it was being done and in that fashion. For example, the targeted purge of (Democratic Party only) voters was usually done under the cover of alleged concern about accuracy of voting polls. A postcard was mailed out to the last recorded street address of that voter, saying this was a check and asking the voter to write back or telephone a number to indicate receipt. The (Republican) officials who did this claimed (usually lying) that all responses were logged, and then a second card was sent marked to never be forwarded by the Post Office, saying this was the last chance to remain enrolled. The officials then claimed to have acted on all responses to these, too (and usually lied). Even if they had not lied, one fundamental problem is that the Voting Rights Act makes such a purge illegal of a qualified voter with a correctly declared residence address _without_ any obligation to respond to anything at all. Therefore, such voters who showed up on Election Day and were denied the right to vote based on 'You're no longer on the voting rolls' were illegally disenfranchised. Outright vote-count _rigging_ also occurred, and suspiciously in exactly the states and counties closest to tipping the 'purple' state in question so that the state's entire Electoral College tally went to the Republican ticket (Trump/Pence) rather than to the Democratic ticket (Clinton/Kaine). This was suspicious because of how finely calculated the effect was, _and_ more and more evidence has been emerging that it was not an accident. I should stress that this was not a Russian-directed effort only, in that there was massive help from domestic traitors, starting with a covert data analytics firm named Cambridge Analytica founded by far-right lunatic billionaire Robert Mercer and staffed by firebrand Steve Bannon. That firm had at first backed the universally loathed Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who was at one point a leading Republican primary election candidate. When Cruz dropped out of the race, they switched to backing The Toddler, Mr. Trump. Domestic traitors including but not limited to Cambridge Analytica were instrumental in telling the Putin-funded saboteurs where to manipulate, where to surveil, where to apply influence, etc. Leading up to the November 2016 electionse, _all 17_ USA intelligence agencies were in agreement that Putin was using many illegal measures to attempt to interfere in the election on Trump/Pence's behalf. Of course, it not being appropriate for secret agencies to directly enter domestic politics, they brought these findings urgently to President Obama, nearing the end of his term of office. Obama in turn warned Putin directly, very sternly, to cease interfering or there would be great repercussions to his disadvantage, and then Obama met privately with Congressional leaders about the threat to the republic's election integrity, presenting the intelligence agencies' damning evidence behind closed doors and seeking a bilateral consensus to act and speak publicly to repel this critical attack. This effort to seek a unified response was prevented, because Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (a Bible Belt state) stated that he refused to believe the unanimous advice of all 17 US intelligence agencies plus the President, and would deny Obama the support of his party in the Senate. In other words, he traitorously backstabbed his (and my) country for raw power reasons. This was not the first act of outright treason McConnell had carried out. Starting a year earlier, McConnell had openly declared after ultra-right-wing US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died that the Republican-controlled Senate would refuse to hold hearings to consider Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, universally admired moderate Judge Merrick Garland. McConnell cheekily claimed -- with one year remaining in Obama's second 4-year term, that it would be inappropriate to approve a nominee 'so close' to an election, but rather that 'the people should decide', e.g., that the next President's choice would take the seat, instead. (The Toddler, once in office, appointed a far-right person who has turned out to be worse than Scalia.) McConnell was able to get away with his treason, in part because there are no longer Republicans of conscience willing to act with Democrats to stop this inappropriate denial of a Presidential function, and also because _technically_ the Constitution doesn't require the Senate to hold confirmation hearings, only to vote yea or nay _if_ they hold such hearings. My point is: It wasn't just the Russians, but also it required key help, both covert and overt, from Republicans so devoted to power that they were willing to commit treason with a foreigh power to perpetuate it. They are still the main real problem, to this day. Without them, the Russians would have remained, as Senator McCain mockingly called them in 2014, 'a gas [petrol] station masquerading as a country'. There is a _great_ deal more to this, including the direct evidence of vote manipulation you speak of, but it is only slowly coming out. Part of the reason for the slowness is that The Toddler absolutely refuses to permit any Federal resources to be devoted to _either_ investigating past foreign interference _or_ protecting the nation's election systems against future interference. (The Toddler, too, par excellence, is a traitor, not to mention so extremely self-absorbed that he refuses to defend his own country if doing so might in any way suggest illegitimacy in how he entered office.)
Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
I should stress that this was not a Russian-directed effort only, in that there was massive help from domestic traitors, starting with a covert data analytics firm named Cambridge Analytica founded by far-right lunatic billionaire Robert Mercer and staffed by firebrand Steve Bannon.
Is it fair to describe Cambridge Analytica as domestic (i.e. USian)? My understanding is/was that they are London-based and mostly UKians, who rent out their leet math skillz to anyone who wants some agitprop and is rich enough to afford their fees. i.e. basically a more advanced evolution of the SEO lifeform.
My point is: It wasn't just the Russians, but also it required key help, both covert and overt, from Republicans so devoted to power that they were willing to commit treason with a foreigh power to perpetuate it. They are still the main real problem, to this day.
No arguments here.
Without them, the Russians would have remained, as Senator McCain mockingly called them in 2014, 'a gas [petrol] station masquerading as a country'.
USA has enough energy reserves to be able to say that, but I think Germany has to be a bit more circumspect :-) https://energydesk.carto.com/viz/b4da69b6-df45-11e3-96d5-0e10bcd91c2b/public... https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu isn't working for me right now, but it is a good way to compare countries import/export markets --- last time I looked, Russia was the only country I could find with WORSE export diversity than Australia.
(The Toddler, too, par excellence, is a traitor, not to mention so extremely self-absorbed that he refuses to defend his own country if doing so might in any way suggest illegitimacy in how he entered office.)
Quick litmus test: Donald Trump or Andrew Jackson for worst US president?
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Is it fair to describe Cambridge Analytica as domestic (i.e. USian)? My understanding is/was that they are London-based and mostly UKians, who rent out their leet math skillz to anyone who wants some agitprop and is rich enough to afford their fees.
i.e. basically a more advanced evolution of the SEO lifeform.
So, that's a strange thing. In original organisational form, it was created in the UK as a subsidiary(?, offshoot?) of British company SCL Group PLC. However, that was misdirection and a blind, because its entire purpose as funded and directed by majority owner and far-right lunatic billionaire Robert Mercer (who also funded Breitbart News) was to interfere using cutting-edge data-mining _plus_ political dirty tricks in American politics. A side-effort of Cambridge Analytica got funded and run by -- ta-da! -- Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner in 2016(?) to do the really dirty stuff, run out of a nondescript office building in Texas. Kushner handed off this effort to a hire named Brad Parscale, to run Trump's digital campaign and other shady things. It is very widely believed that the coordinated attack with Putin's well-funded but otherwise USA-clueless online operatives ran through the Texas operation. This was keenly focussed on figuring out to manipulate and distort the election in the few key swing states that ended up changing the election results by Electoral College chicanery despite Secretary Clinton's 3 million vote advantage in the popular vote totals. One of the key people _also_ running Cambridge Analytica and the Texas side-operation, at the time, was Trump flunkey and multiple felon Michael Flynn, who is extremely dirty with Russia connections and business complications. Here's a backgrounder: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/mueller-fbi-camb... However, the story is still unraveling, so there is a great deal you cannot find in old articles like that one.
Quick litmus test: Donald Trump or Andrew Jackson for worst US president?
So far, Jackson's body count is a lot higher, with particular points of total disgrace concerning Amerindian peoples. OTOH, he never tried to dismantle his own country's government for totalitarian reasons, nor betrayed it to foreign adversary countries. Also, Jackson despite his temper (all those moronic duels) actually had a brain and was literate. So, it really depends on your criteria. I'm thinking Trump despite the body count thing, on grounds of making a broad-based and protracted attack on one's own nation. The Toddler idolises Jackson, FWIW.
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
As a correction, the article says and implies nothing whatsoever about 'most Americans', and you cannot reasonably draw conclusions about the majority of 325 million Americans from it -- for the simple reason that it's about _evangelicals_. Who are a subculture.
People who identify as "evangelicals" are a very large subculture. Using the word "subculture" in this context seems misleading as it seems to imply that they are small and lack influence.
If you want to sound less like a crank, cite actual numbers. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_christian#cite_ref-How_Many_Evange... The United States has the largest concentration of evangelicals in the world. Based mostly in the Bible Belt, US evangelicals are a quarter of the nation's population and politically important.^[4] 25% of Americans is patently not "most Americans" (but nor is it insignificant). If you want to pick on a particular nation-state for being religious, all you gotta do is pull up this handy graph, and work your way up from the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglehart%E2%80%93Welzel_cultural_map_of_the_w...
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 11:07:31 AM AEDT Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
As a correction, the article says and implies nothing whatsoever about 'most Americans', and you cannot reasonably draw conclusions about the majority of 325 million Americans from it -- for the simple reason that it's about _evangelicals_. Who are a subculture.
People who identify as "evangelicals" are a very large subculture. Using the word "subculture" in this context seems misleading as it seems to imply that they are small and lack influence.
If you want to sound less like a crank, cite actual numbers. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_christian#cite_ref-How_Many_Evang elicals_Are_There_5-0 The United States has the largest concentration of evangelicals in the world. Based mostly in the Bible Belt, US evangelicals are a quarter of the nation's population and politically important.^[4]
25% of Americans is patently not "most Americans" (but nor is it insignificant).
Yes, it's not like stamp collectors. If all the stamp collectors in the US had a particular political belief then it wouldn't affect public policy unless they had a very targeted agenda and the money and organisation skills of the NRA. While some of the theories about memes are a bit extreme, the general concepts hold water. If 25% of the population consistently makes some claim then people who hear that will tend to think that it has some merit. 25% is enough that almost everyone in the US will have a friend of a friend who's an evangelical and most people will have a friend or relative who is.
If you want to pick on a particular nation-state for being religious, all you gotta do is pull up this handy graph, and work your way up from the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglehart–Welzel_cultural_map_of_the_world
The second lowest entry in the English speaking section of that graph is the US. The only worse one is Ireland. In Australia we don't watch much Irish TV, U2 is the only Irish pop group I can think of (I'm sure there are others but I could name a dozen American groups), of the companies involved in running the Internet most of them are connected to the US and the only connections to Ireland are through tax avoidance schemes. When politicians want to cut medicare I don't blame Ireland, but I think that the US deserves some of the blame. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Yes, it's not like stamp collectors. If all the stamp collectors in the US had a particular political belief then it wouldn't affect public policy unless they had a very targeted agenda and the money and organisation skills of the NRA.
While some of the theories about memes are a bit extreme, the general concepts hold water. If 25% of the population consistently makes some claim then people who hear that will tend to think that it has some merit. 25% is enough that almost everyone in the US will have a friend of a friend who's an evangelical and most people will have a friend or relative who is.
You had absolutely no basis for claiming that a majority of Americans would or would not read the Bible, irrespective of what his alleged 25% of the population is. This is obvious. You put yourself in a hole by claiming otherwise. Stop digging.
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 3:18:49 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
You had absolutely no basis for claiming that a majority of Americans would or would not read the Bible, irrespective of what his alleged 25% of the population is.
This is obvious. You put yourself in a hole by claiming otherwise. Stop digging.
Would you be happier if instead I said "most Americans demonstrate no knowledge of the Bible in online debates and most articles in the media that touch on such issues accept without question claims that directly go against the Bible"? For example consider all the discussions about homosexuality where Christians reference the Old Testament. Such people usually have no problem eating cheeseburgers, ham, or shellfish. There are reasonable theological beliefs about excluding most of the Old Testament for non-Jewish people who are Christian (a Jewish friend tells me that his interpretation is that if he converted to Christianity he would still be bound by Kosher restrictions etc). But anyone who is going to exclude themself from the Kosher dietary restrictions is also excluding themself from citing the Old Testament in support of political aims. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-death-penalty-in-jewish-traditi... Above is one article about the death penalty in the Jewish tradition. As that article makes clear even though there are some verses that clearly state that the death penalty is required if you consider the entire Torah along with the traditions for interpreting it then it's a very different issue. There are issues where the Bible has different versions that could give different meanings, including some fairly important issues like whether non- believers can go to heaven (last time I looked into it I could find evidence to make a good case for either alternative). But you don't often see any Christian mention such things, it's just a matter of faith regarding which interpretation to take. Rick, you have demonstrated an excellent knowledge of theology in general and the Bible in particular. In all the times I've been involved in religious and political discussions on the Internet there has only been one other person who has demonstrated such an ability, and he's Jewish. It's a poor showing for team Christianity. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/meet-the-catholic-priest-whose-twitt... There are Christians who are really good at analysing the Bible and debating it. The above article about Rev. James Martin, S.J is worth reading. However if you read his twitter feed most of the responses demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the Bible. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
Would you be happier if instead I said "most Americans demonstrate no knowledge of the Bible in online debates and most articles in the media that touch on such issues accept without question claims that directly go against the Bible"?
Oh, for pity's sake. You really don't know how to say "Ok, I guess I was wrong and made a completely unsupported foolish, factual claim, and I hereby retract it.' I don't care if you now wish to move the goalposts and conveniently change the subject to lots of other things not remotely relevant to the antecedent conversation (including, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, homosexuality and kashrut in an apparent effort to distract). I will not be participating. I only ask: Kindly shut up the next time you are tempted to mouth off in ignorance about my country. A closed mouth gathers no foot. And don't ever try to troll me with suggesting I need to feel guilty about my deadliest domestic political enemies, the ones who have been conducting a slow coup against democracy and the rule of law in my republic, again, or I really _will_ pound your fallacies straight into the figurative ground, and enjoy it.
Hello All, Interesting reading this thread, we all have opinions, some better backed than others. Not all those who claim to be Christian are, on several grounds. I am fed up with hearing all those sermons, I want to _SEE_ the sermon instead. There is also a tendency to believe in god in the image of man, rather than man in the image of god, unrealized and without comprehension of the distinction. It is also possible to support almost any position with a selective reading and quoting of the bible, I am suspicious of anyone doing too much detail quoting of the bible, especially when taken without the context of when the writing is about, who the nominal author is, and not neglecting the effects of the multiple translations and time it was an oral tradition. There is room for different religions, and even variations within the various faiths, but it requires a large measure of tolerance that others may have a different background and yet be able to go forward together. Those who do not tolerate other faiths are being unfaithful to the community spirit that is present in all the real faiths. I regard the "Prosperity Gospel" as a severe misreading and corruption, and definitely not truly Christian. Regards, Mark Trickett
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
A Jewish friend tells me that his interpretation is that if he converted to Christianity he would still be bound by Kosher restrictions.
… the majority of Jews see being Jewish as predominantly a matter of ancestry and culture, rather than religion.^[1]^[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew? In other words, "Christian Jew" is no more a contradiction than a "Christian Berber" or "Christian Celt". OTOH your friend might be referring these guys, who are both ethnoculturally and religiously Jewish, but are forced at swordpoint to disavow the latter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anusim
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-death-penalty-in-jewish-traditi...
Above is one article about the death penalty in the Jewish tradition. As that article makes clear even though there are some verses that clearly state that the death penalty is required if you consider the entire Torah along with the traditions for interpreting it then it's a very different issue.
That would also critically depend whether your sect follows the LETTER of the law, or the SPIRIT of the law. e.g. is any kind of melakhah forbidden on Shabbat, or only the 39 melakhoth specifically mentioned? :-) cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
In all the times I've been involved in religious and political discussions on the Internet there has only been one other person who has demonstrated such an ability, and he's Jewish. It's a poor showing for team Christianity.
Jews have been Europe's go-to patsy for millenia, so I'm not surprised there are a few who can quote scripture in self-defense :-P (A favourite trick of monarchs was to ban Jewish residents from taking any job other than tax collecting. Then once the taxes are in, to turn around and tell everybody "hey don't blame me for taxing you so harshly, it was probably those bloody Jews not following my orders properly!" —Hrm, I can't find a cite for that, so ICBW!)
Russell, I could easily argue with you on Old Testament vs. New Testament, the meanings of some of the Old Testament law, how it relates to New Testament law and to Christians today, how that is different to how it relates to Jews today, if you want to have that discussion. In the past I've found you to be aggressive and not really open to discussion, but if you want to discuss those points, I'm open to it. I won't claim to understand everything there is to know about it, but I'll discuss it with you to the best of my ability and maybe clear up some misunderstandings about Jewish law and Christian practices. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Russell Coker via luv-talk < luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 3:18:49 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
You had absolutely no basis for claiming that a majority of Americans would or would not read the Bible, irrespective of what his alleged 25% of the population is.
This is obvious. You put yourself in a hole by claiming otherwise. Stop digging.
Would you be happier if instead I said "most Americans demonstrate no knowledge of the Bible in online debates and most articles in the media that touch on such issues accept without question claims that directly go against the Bible"?
For example consider all the discussions about homosexuality where Christians reference the Old Testament. Such people usually have no problem eating cheeseburgers, ham, or shellfish. There are reasonable theological beliefs about excluding most of the Old Testament for non-Jewish people who are Christian (a Jewish friend tells me that his interpretation is that if he converted to Christianity he would still be bound by Kosher restrictions etc). But anyone who is going to exclude themself from the Kosher dietary restrictions is also excluding themself from citing the Old Testament in support of political aims.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-death-penalty- in-jewish-tradition/
Above is one article about the death penalty in the Jewish tradition. As that article makes clear even though there are some verses that clearly state that the death penalty is required if you consider the entire Torah along with the traditions for interpreting it then it's a very different issue.
There are issues where the Bible has different versions that could give different meanings, including some fairly important issues like whether non- believers can go to heaven (last time I looked into it I could find evidence to make a good case for either alternative). But you don't often see any Christian mention such things, it's just a matter of faith regarding which interpretation to take.
Rick, you have demonstrated an excellent knowledge of theology in general and the Bible in particular. In all the times I've been involved in religious and political discussions on the Internet there has only been one other person who has demonstrated such an ability, and he's Jewish. It's a poor showing for team Christianity.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/meet-the- catholic-priest-whose-twitter-puts-trump-to-shame
There are Christians who are really good at analysing the Bible and debating it. The above article about Rev. James Martin, S.J is worth reading. However if you read his twitter feed most of the responses demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the Bible.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 7:45:06 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
I won't claim to understand everything there is to know about it, but I'll discuss it with you to the best of my ability and maybe clear up some misunderstandings about Jewish law and Christian practices.
Given the ongoing discussion about the use of the word "evangelist", perhaps you could start by telling us what you think the Bible's position is on racism, sexism, and homosexuality. These are some of the main differences between the ideas of evangelical Christians and the more common standards of our society. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Thursday, 15 March 2018 7:45:06 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
I won't claim to understand everything there is to know about it, but I'll discuss it with you to the best of my ability and maybe clear up some misunderstandings about Jewish law and Christian practices.
Given the ongoing discussion about the use of the word "evangelist", perhaps you could start by telling us what you think the Bible's position is on racism, sexism, and homosexuality. These are some of the main differences between the ideas of evangelical Christians and the more common standards of our society. <http://doc.coker.com.au/>
Jesus had 2 commandments....that you love the Lord your God, with all your heart, mind, strength and soul, and that you love your neighbour as yourself. All races are equal, all sins are equal. Your enemy is your neighbour as much as any other.
Quoting Michael Scott (luv@inoz.net):
Jesus had 2 commandments....that you love the Lord your God, with all your heart, mind, strength and soul, and that you love your neighbour as yourself. All races are equal, all sins are equal. Your enemy is your neighbour as much as any other.
I'm still curious, and I've asked a couple of times (as has Trent): Where's the bit where Jesus requires followers to conduct evangelism? Please cite. The bit in Matthew about not lighting a lamp and putting it under a bowl does not qualify, IMO, nor the weak and opaque metaphor about him saying to his disciples that they should ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest field. I would expect you to be able to quote something where Jesus says unequivocably 'Hey, your Lord above expects you to go out and convince lots of other people to join us in worship.' The closest I can find is Matthew 28:19-20, about 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of [etc.]' That's really pretty unclear: If evangelism were important and a positive obligation, wouldn't Jesus have said it _plainly_? Also, if it were a clear obligation, wouldn't it be in more than one of the four Gospels? Hmm? Just curious. For the most part, Jesus struck me as following in the long Jewish tradition of leaving people the heck alone if they were not interested -- which would make sense, as after all he was Jewish. Call me a cynic, but it strikes me that 'evangelism' (salesmanship) might be a Saint Paul-era accretion.
On Friday, 16 March 2018 6:41:27 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
Jesus had 2 commandments....that you love the Lord your God, with all your heart, mind, strength and soul, and that you love your neighbour as yourself. All races are equal, all sins are equal. Your enemy is your neighbour as much as any other.
What of people who don't obey those commandments? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/14/trumps-religious-right... The people at the Values Voters Summit seem to disagree with you on those commandments, otherwise they wouldn't have welcomed Trump and given him a standing ovation. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi Russell, Not sure if this will make it onto the luv-talk list. For some reason my subscribed email address isn't making it. Without reading the article you've linked, I couldn't agree more. What of people who don't obey those commandments? I don't think you or I could name ONE person who has obeyed those commandments. That's why Jesus came into the world. Because NOBODY could fulfill God's standard. That's WHY Jesus died on the cross. On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Friday, 16 March 2018 6:41:27 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
Jesus had 2 commandments....that you love the Lord your God, with all your heart, mind, strength and soul, and that you love your neighbour as yourself. All races are equal, all sins are equal. Your enemy is your neighbour as much as any other.
What of people who don't obey those commandments?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/14/ trumps-religious-right-hypocrisy-values-voter-summit
The people at the Values Voters Summit seem to disagree with you on those commandments, otherwise they wouldn't have welcomed Trump and given him a standing ovation.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Friday, 16 March 2018 9:53:08 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
Not sure if this will make it onto the luv-talk list. For some reason my subscribed email address isn't making it.
If you are receiving bounces then send them to me off-list. If not please send me the time of a message you sent which didn't seem to make it along with the message-id if possible and I'll investigate it.
Without reading the article you've linked, I couldn't agree more.
Why not read the article?
What of people who don't obey those commandments? I don't think you or I could name ONE person who has obeyed those commandments. That's why Jesus came into the world. Because NOBODY could fulfill God's standard. That's WHY Jesus died on the cross.
Are you saying that it doesn't matter if someone doesn't even try? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Most importantly, NO, I'm not saying it doesn't matter if someone doesn't even try. Jesus says that some will claim to have done works in His name. There are a number of parables and stories in the New Testament which describe why just claiming to follow Jesus doesn't work. Don't ask me to tell you exactly how it works. There are 66 books in the Bible. Don't ask me to summarise them here. I'm not saying that I won't read the article. Just that, without reading the article, I agree, there are hypocrites....but NOBODY is a perfect Christian, whether hypocrite or not. I'm not. I don't claim to be. That's WHY we need Jesus. Again, don't ask me to explain it to you. 27 books in the New Testament are still being studied by biblical scholars. Christ died for you and for me. I DO things BECAUSE of that, not to EARN anything. I can't earn anything. It's already been done FOR me. On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Russell Coker via luv-talk < luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
On Friday, 16 March 2018 9:53:08 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
Not sure if this will make it onto the luv-talk list. For some reason my subscribed email address isn't making it.
If you are receiving bounces then send them to me off-list. If not please send me the time of a message you sent which didn't seem to make it along with the message-id if possible and I'll investigate it.
Without reading the article you've linked, I couldn't agree more.
Why not read the article?
What of people who don't obey those commandments? I don't think you or I could name ONE person who has obeyed those commandments. That's why Jesus came into the world. Because NOBODY could fulfill God's standard. That's WHY Jesus died on the cross.
Are you saying that it doesn't matter if someone doesn't even try?
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
On Friday, 16 March 2018 11:24:44 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
Most importantly, NO, I'm not saying it doesn't matter if someone doesn't even try. Jesus says that some will claim to have done works in His name. There are a number of parables and stories in the New Testament which describe why just claiming to follow Jesus doesn't work. Don't ask me to tell you exactly how it works. There are 66 books in the Bible. Don't ask me to summarise them here.
I'm not asking you to summarise the Bible. Merely to summarise whether you agree or disagree with the people referenced in that article. I could cite some other articles about influential Christian organisations supporting Trump if you like.
I'm not saying that I won't read the article. Just that, without reading the article, I agree, there are hypocrites....but NOBODY is a perfect Christian, whether hypocrite or not. I'm not. I don't claim to be. That's WHY we need Jesus. Again, don't ask me to explain it to you. 27 books in the New Testament are still being studied by biblical scholars. Christ died for you and for me. I DO things BECAUSE of that, not to EARN anything. I can't earn anything. It's already been done FOR me.
Is it possible for you to give a yes/no answer as to whether you agree with certain other groups of Christians? Your previous messages seemed to imply that you had some agreement with Evangelical Christians, is that really your position? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Please do cite other articles about "influential Christian organisations supporting Trump". I certainly don't. A yes/no answer is really not possible to that question. Please ask me what you want an answer on, not whether I agree with some group, or not. On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Friday, 16 March 2018 11:24:44 PM AEDT Michael Scott wrote:
Most importantly, NO, I'm not saying it doesn't matter if someone doesn't even try. Jesus says that some will claim to have done works in His name. There are a number of parables and stories in the New Testament which describe why just claiming to follow Jesus doesn't work. Don't ask me to tell you exactly how it works. There are 66 books in the Bible. Don't ask me to summarise them here.
I'm not asking you to summarise the Bible. Merely to summarise whether you agree or disagree with the people referenced in that article. I could cite some other articles about influential Christian organisations supporting Trump if you like.
I'm not saying that I won't read the article. Just that, without reading the article, I agree, there are hypocrites....but NOBODY is a perfect Christian, whether hypocrite or not. I'm not. I don't claim to be. That's WHY we need Jesus. Again, don't ask me to explain it to you. 27 books in the New Testament are still being studied by biblical scholars. Christ died for you and for me. I DO things BECAUSE of that, not to EARN anything. I can't earn anything. It's already been done FOR me.
Is it possible for you to give a yes/no answer as to whether you agree with certain other groups of Christians? Your previous messages seemed to imply that you had some agreement with Evangelical Christians, is that really your position?
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
While some of the theories about memes are a bit extreme, the general concepts hold water. If 25% of the population consistently makes some claim then people who hear that will tend to think that it has some merit. 25% is enough that almost everyone in the US will have a friend of a friend who's an evangelical and most people will have a friend or relative who is.
I think you're talking about the Overton window, there.
If you want to pick on a particular nation-state for being religious, all you gotta do is pull up this handy graph, and work your way up from the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglehart–Welzel_cultural_map_of_the_world
The second lowest entry in the English speaking section of that graph is the US. The only worse one is Ireland.
OK, but WHY are you focusing solely on the anglophone community?
When politicians want to cut medicare I don't blame Ireland, but I think that the US deserves some of the blame.
OK, but what has that to do with religion? If your actual agenda is to complain about negative US influence on Australian culture and policymaking, why don't you say that, rather than opening with unsubtantiated claims about biblical literacy in the US cohort? :-) It seems to me that you've found some people being dickheads, and they're saying "god wants us to do this!", and you think "if only there were no gods, there'd be no dickheads". But, like, that's just their excuse — the underlying reason is usually irreligious, e.g. two groups both want the same bit of arable land or trade route, and they can't BOTH have it. In the case of universal healthcare, the underlying reason is pretty obviously that the capitalists think it's cheaper to maintain a police caste to keep the lumpenproletariat under control when their ol' Mums get sick, than it is to just keep everybody healthy in the first place. (I think they're wrong, but for a partial counterargument start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_population)
participants (6)
-
Mark Trickett -
Michael Scott -
Paul Dwerryhouse -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck