Are white evangelicals the biggest hypocrites?

[Thunderbird is the word]

The overarching problem with this thread is that many non-Evangelicals are either unable or unwilling to argue within Evangelicals moral framework. This leads to the absurdity of asserting Evangelicals don't practice what they preach, while ignoring massive amounts of said preaching. We see this most  notably with abortion*, but it affects a variety of issues such as economics, religious liberty, and education.

Again, I must note, there's still an Evangelical case against Trump, but it is not nearly as clear cut most posters think, and it definitely doesn't make pro-Trump Evangelicals 'the biggest hypocrites EVAH'.

*This is the most egregious example. If one candidate was advocating mass murder in your eyes, it would play a YUGE role in your vote and it would take a massive counterweight to get you to vote for the pro-murder candidate, yet we see the same stupid arguments about how if we really cared, we ought to vote for the pro-murder, somewhat larger welfare state candidate.

I'm not an evangelical or religious at all but I can respect this. I have my own strong beliefs and line in the sand principles that I wouldn't compromise on so of course i'd respect others for doing the same. I think Chris Hayes made this point recently when illustrating the folly of Hillary's campaign strategy being based around trying to win over disaffected anti-Trump Republicans when he talked about a thought experiment he posed to other liberals in asking them if they'd vote for Ted Cruz in a hypothetical matchup between him and Kanye West.

[Beet]

And if I do so, and that candidate wins, what becomes the consequences?

+++ SCOTUS Justices that will expand abortion rights beyond what is in place now

+++ SCOTUS Justices entrenching euthanasia in law

+++ Use of the IRS to persecute religious schools, charitable organizations, and legitimate ministries.

+++ Justice Department officials that will actively move against Christians who preach the Biblical view of homosexuality as "hate speech"

+++  Justice Department officials taking action to force Christian schools and organizations (and other religious schools and organizations) to employ open homosexuals, even when being a believing Christian manifesting a Christian lifestyle is a legitimate job requirement (including forcing churches to ordain women and homosexuals, regardless of doctrine)

+++ Initiatives to remove church tax exemptions

+++ Political operatives infiltrating churches in deliberate attempts to change their doctrines (the "Catholic Spring" of Podesta's e-mails)

There is no proof that Donald Trump "sexually assaults women".  There is certainly proof that Bill Clinton did, and that Hillary Clinton ran a smear campaign to discredit his accusers (for HER benefit, not his). 

Hillary Clinton is anti-Evangelical.  If she could, she would use her Presidential power to silence churches that preach that homosexuality is sin.  The Bible says it is, and Evangelical Christians believe that Scripture is authoritative.  Hillary Clinton is a candidate that would actively work to force believers to disobey their God and conform to a humanist vision of how things should be.  The election of 2016 was a binary choice, and one choice would have the effect of inviting persecution onto the Church.  Neither Clinton nor Trump are particularly Godly folks, but policy matters, and I am not favorably disposed to supporting someone whose desire is to twist my arm when it comes to what I know God's Word to be.

So what you are saying is that you would vote for the devil so as long as he purports to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Also, "grab them by the p****" is sexual assault.

And abortion is murder, yet that doesn't seem to factor into your analysis. How much sexual assault would the Democratic nominee have to commit in order for you to vote for a guy who would put gays in the closet? These questions are harder than you think.

You guys keep saying 'abortion is murder' to justify supporting Trump no matter what he does. But can someone point to me where, in the Scripture, does it say that abortion is murder, or even mentions the word abortion? If this issue was so important to God, then in a book such as the Bible which is not exactly a brief novella, there would be space to make that crystal clear, would there not be? Yet no one I have met has yet to be able to point to such a clear prohibition, in the plain text, without adding their own interpretation.

Secondly, if pro-lifers really believed abortion was murder, then every government today where abortion is legal is as bad as Nazi Germany, and should be resisted at all costs, even violently. Pro-lifers wouldn't just be protesting abortion clinics, they would be overwhelming them every day with massive displays of civil disobedience, even braving the National Guard or police to make sure not a single abortion was performed. And you would not be shy in arguing that a woman who had an abortion should be charged with first degree murder and put away for 20 years.

And if life really begins at conception, why isn't every failed implantation, which is how a significant percentage of all pregnancies end, the death of a person? Shouldn't we be scrambling to make sure that every zygote that is formed successfully implants, surgically if necessary? Why would God create a natural cycle that kills of every fourth human being before he or she even has the chance to breathe?

I don't question the sincerity of anyone's beliefs but I don't think pro-lifers realize that deep down, the vast, vast majority do not actually equate abortion with murder, for they certainly don't behave that way. Because it would be absurd to do so.

[RI]

You guys keep saying 'abortion is murder' to justify supporting Trump no matter what he does. But can someone point to me where, in the Scripture, does it say that abortion is murder, or even mentions the word abortion?

It's in the Didache, which might as well be Scripture.

[Fuzzy Bear]

And if I do so, and that candidate wins, what becomes the consequences?

+++ SCOTUS Justices that will expand abortion rights beyond what is in place now

+++ SCOTUS Justices entrenching euthanasia in law

+++ Use of the IRS to persecute religious schools, charitable organizations, and legitimate ministries.

+++ Justice Department officials that will actively move against Christians who preach the Biblical view of homosexuality as "hate speech"

+++  Justice Department officials taking action to force Christian schools and organizations (and other religious schools and organizations) to employ open homosexuals, even when being a believing Christian manifesting a Christian lifestyle is a legitimate job requirement (including forcing churches to ordain women and homosexuals, regardless of doctrine)

+++ Initiatives to remove church tax exemptions

+++ Political operatives infiltrating churches in deliberate attempts to change their doctrines (the "Catholic Spring" of Podesta's e-mails)

There is no proof that Donald Trump "sexually assaults women".  There is certainly proof that Bill Clinton did, and that Hillary Clinton ran a smear campaign to discredit his accusers (for HER benefit, not his). 

Hillary Clinton is anti-Evangelical.  If she could, she would use her Presidential power to silence churches that preach that homosexuality is sin.  The Bible says it is, and Evangelical Christians believe that Scripture is authoritative.  Hillary Clinton is a candidate that would actively work to force believers to disobey their God and conform to a humanist vision of how things should be.  The election of 2016 was a binary choice, and one choice would have the effect of inviting persecution onto the Church.  Neither Clinton nor Trump are particularly Godly folks, but policy matters, and I am not favorably disposed to supporting someone whose desire is to twist my arm when it comes to what I know God's Word to be.

So what you are saying is that you would vote for the devil so as long as he purports to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Also, "grab them by the p****" is sexual assault.

And abortion is murder, yet that doesn't seem to factor into your analysis. How much sexual assault would the Democratic nominee have to commit in order for you to vote for a guy who would put gays in the closet? These questions are harder than you think.

You guys keep saying 'abortion is murder' to justify supporting Trump no matter what he does. But can someone point to me where, in the Scripture, does it say that abortion is murder, or even mentions the word abortion? If this issue was so important to God, then in a book such as the Bible which is not exactly a brief novella, there would be space to make that crystal clear, would there not be? Yet no one I have met has yet to be able to point to such a clear prohibition, in the plain text, without adding their own interpretation.

Secondly, if pro-lifers really believed abortion was murder, then every government today where abortion is legal is as bad as Nazi Germany, and should be resisted at all costs, even violently. Pro-lifers wouldn't just be protesting abortion clinics, they would be overwhelming them every day with massive displays of civil disobedience, even braving the National Guard or police to make sure not a single abortion was performed. And you would not be shy in arguing that a woman who had an abortion should be charged with first degree murder and put away for 20 years.

And if life really begins at conception, why isn't every failed implantation, which is how a significant percentage of all pregnancies end, the death of a person? Shouldn't we be scrambling to make sure that every zygote that is formed successfully implants, surgically if necessary? Why would God create a natural cycle that kills of every fourth human being before he or she even has the chance to breathe?

I don't question the sincerity of anyone's beliefs but I don't think pro-lifers realize that deep down, the vast, vast majority do not actually equate abortion with murder, for they certainly don't behave that way. Because it would be absurd to do so.

http://dianedew.com/abortion.htm

This is the best discussion of the Biblical view of abortion.

[Beet]

^ ^ This does not say abortion is murder, and is based on turns of the phrase, such as "conceived a son" in a larger passage about fertility, and drawing inferences from that. In Luke 1:36 the pregnancy is already in its sixth month, and in Genesis 25:22 the stage of pregnancy isn't known. This is good evidence that God considers personhood prior to birth, but not necessarily at conception. In contrast, there is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This passage, unlike the above, addresses the value of the fetus directly and is by no means clear. It seems to suggest that no 'life' is given if the pregnancy is terminated 'yet no mischief follow.'

This one is written by a 'skeptic' but makes some good points-
http://joycearthur.shawwebspace.ca/pages/view/anti-choicers_don_t_have_a_bibli/

[Firestorm]

^ ^ This does not say abortion is murder, and is based on turns of the phrase, such as "conceived a son" in a larger passage about fertility, and drawing inferences from that. In Luke 1:36 the pregnancy is already in its sixth month, and in Genesis 25:22 the stage of pregnancy isn't known. This is good evidence that God considers personhood prior to birth, but not necessarily at conception. In contrast, there is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This passage, unlike the above, addresses the value of the fetus directly and is by no means clear. It seems to suggest that no 'life' is given if the pregnancy is terminated 'yet no mischief follow.'

This one is written by a 'skeptic' but makes some good points-
http://joycearthur.shawwebspace.ca/pages/view/anti-choicers_don_t_have_a_bibli/

"I don't actually believe in your Holy Scripture but I'm still going to tell you why you're reading it wrong."

A Muslim will behead for pulling Shi'ite like that on them. I'm a lot more sympathetic to Muslims than some.

You guys keep saying 'abortion is murder' to justify supporting Trump no matter what he does. But can someone point to me where, in the Scripture, does it say that abortion is murder, or even mentions the word abortion?

It's in the Didache, which might as well be Scripture.

Bumping this, even though I doubt that anyone asking questions on this thread is actually looking for cogent answers.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Let's not judge people as groups since each person decides differently, but yeah, a lot of them (that I know personally) certainly are hypocrites for getting mad about Dems wanting to take away their religious freedom and responding by taking unprovoked shots at others' religious freedom, or preaching Christian values and then voting for a man who embodies none of those values in the name of those very values.

[DC Al Fine]

You guys keep saying 'abortion is murder' to justify supporting Trump no matter what he does. But can someone point to me where, in the Scripture, does it say that abortion is murder, or even mentions the word abortion?

It's in the Didache, which might as well be Scripture.

Bumping this, even though I doubt that anyone asking questions on this thread is actually looking for cogent answers.

There's an old joke among Evangelicals. "nobody reads the Bible more literally than an atheist". I don't know what your religious leanings are Beet, but you seem to be falling into that trap.

To elaborate on what realisticidealist said, the Didache is one the oldest non-scripture Christian documents. It was written approximately a generation after the apostles. Early on it discusses the second great commandment (love your neighbour as yourself) and how it meshes with the moral law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here we see that the church, from it's earliest days, saw abortion as murder from their reading of the scriptures. These were people far better versed in Hebrew and Koine Greek than we can ever hope to be.

[Figueira]

Can we stop attacking entire demographic groups, please?

[The_Doctor]

Nt

[7,052,770]

If you really believe abortion is murder, you've gotta vote Democratic, because the abortion rate always goes down under Democratic presidents and up under Republican presidents, as Democratic policies actually have a reducing effect on the count.

[RI]

If you really believe abortion is murder, you've gotta vote Democratic, because the abortion rate always goes down under Democratic presidents and up under Republican presidents, as Democratic policies actually have a reducing effect on the count.

Or you can not believe in consequentialism.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even though I know you and millions of others honestly believe Hillary would do all that, I have a hard time fathoming how that's possible. None of that is anywhere close to anything Hillary has ever advocated.

It's scary how unscrupulous preachers and Internet trolls on the Right have hoodwinked so many people into believing such nonsense...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

This, coupled with a packed Supreme Court, could force these changes.

Think about it; they want to infiltrate and manipulate religions that oppose them that they don't believe in. 

John Podesta is neither a preacher, nor a troll.  Think about that as well.

I don't think the left comprehends whatsoever the level of fear religious conservatives have of them in power. They can argue the Democrat establishment would never do the things their supporters want to do to religious conservatives, but few religious conservatives are going to believe that. Why? Because the political landscape changes and the left's social positions change with it. If the left is correct that we are on some arc of social progress, the they're of course going to be against the "next step" right up until they're for it. It's like an entire ideology built around perpetually moving the goal posts.

[7,052,770]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

This, coupled with a packed Supreme Court, could force these changes.

Think about it; they want to infiltrate and manipulate religions that oppose them that they don't believe in. 

John Podesta is neither a preacher, nor a troll.  Think about that as well.

Is that really the best you can do? Private musings between people aren't the same as actual public policy advocated by anyone - you know that Trump's people, Obama's people, Bush's people, etc., had all kinds of personal conversations that have no bearing on anything that was actually done.

Lots of liberal Catholics dream of a day when the church stops being so uptight, especially on issues like contraception, where over 90% of Catholics ignore church "teachings." There was nothing unusual about these scary emailz.

I also think it's hilarious how all these super-right-wing evangelicals, who normally don't even believe Catholics are Christian or can go to Heaven, suddenly care so much about us when they can score a political point or two.

I don't think the left comprehends whatsoever the level of fear religious conservatives have of them in power. They can argue the Democrat establishment would never do the things their supporters want to do to religious conservatives, but few religious conservatives are going to believe that. Why? Because the political landscape changes and the left's social positions change with it. If the left is correct that we are on some arc of social progress, the they're of course going to be against the "next step" right up until they're for it. It's like an entire ideology built around perpetually moving the goal posts.

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

Liberal Christians generally don't go to church as often.  Liberal denominations are dying out (see Church of England).

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

This, coupled with a packed Supreme Court, could force these changes.

Think about it; they want to infiltrate and manipulate religions that oppose them that they don't believe in. 

John Podesta is neither a preacher, nor a troll.  Think about that as well.

Is that really the best you can do? Private musings between people aren't the same as actual public policy advocated by anyone - you know that Trump's people, Obama's people, Bush's people, etc., had all kinds of personal conversations that have no bearing on anything that was actually done.

Lots of liberal Catholics dream of a day when the church stops being so uptight, especially on issues like contraception, where over 90% of Catholics ignore church "teachings." There was nothing unusual about these scary emailz.

I also think it's hilarious how all these super-right-wing evangelicals, who normally don't even believe Catholics are Christian or can go to Heaven, suddenly care so much about us when they can score a political point or two.

I don't think the left comprehends whatsoever the level of fear religious conservatives have of them in power. They can argue the Democrat establishment would never do the things their supporters want to do to religious conservatives, but few religious conservatives are going to believe that. Why? Because the political landscape changes and the left's social positions change with it. If the left is correct that we are on some arc of social progress, the they're of course going to be against the "next step" right up until they're for it. It's like an entire ideology built around perpetually moving the goal posts.

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

If you don't agree with Roman Catholicism, don't be a Catholic.  No one's forcing you.  

If you don't want to be an Evangelical, you don't have to be one.  Jesus doesn't twist arms.  Christianity is proselytizing, but not Jihadist.

A church that accepts homosexuality as an acceptable behavior is a church that has abandoned Scripture as being Authoritative.  It's just another book, no more an authority than The Cat In The Hat.  That's fine, too; millions of Americans believe just that.  But if you do believe that, don't come at me with a Bible and tell me I'm wrong, because I'll tell you that your argument is rubbish because you don't believe Scripture to be authoritative, and you're probably wrongly dividing the Word.  When it comes to the authority of Scripture, I'm going to call folks when they try to have it both ways.

[7,052,770]

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

Liberal Christians generally don't go to church as often.  Liberal denominations are dying out (see Church of England).

With people born in the 1980s and 1990s, supporting gay equality is not a sign of liberalism. Lots of conservative Millienials are openly pro-LGBT and once they take leadership positions in their churches, the churches will flip to supporting gay equality, just like virtually all churches, even in the Deep South, are explicitly anti-racist.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

Liberal Christians generally don't go to church as often.  Liberal denominations are dying out (see Church of England).

With people born in the 1980s and 1990s, supporting gay equality is not a sign of liberalism. Lots of conservative Millienials are openly pro-LGBT and once they take leadership positions in their churches, the churches will flip to supporting gay equality, just like virtually all churches, even in the Deep South, are explicitly anti-racist.

The future of American Evangelicalism is in immigrant communities, not white millennials.

[7,052,770]

If you don't agree with Roman Catholicism, don't be a Catholic.  No one's forcing you.  

If you don't want to be an Evangelical, you don't have to be one.  Jesus doesn't twist arms.  Christianity is proselytizing, but not Jihadist.

A church that accepts homosexuality as an acceptable behavior is a church that has abandoned Scripture as being Authoritative.  It's just another book, no more an authority than The Cat In The Hat.  That's fine, too; millions of Americans believe just that.  But if you do believe that, don't come at me with a Bible and tell me I'm wrong, because I'll tell you that your argument is rubbish because you don't believe Scripture to be authoritative, and you're probably wrongly dividing the Word.  When it comes to the authority of Scripture, I'm going to call folks when they try to have it both ways.

False. Just because your prick pastor told you that Episcopals are heretics (I'm not being dramatic by using that word - you yourself used it awhile back while referring to pro-gay Christians) doesn't mean it's true. The Bible is the bedrock of the Episcopal Church, Lutherans, plenty of other pro-LGBT denominations.

[RINO Tom]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

This, coupled with a packed Supreme Court, could force these changes.

Think about it; they want to infiltrate and manipulate religions that oppose them that they don't believe in. 

John Podesta is neither a preacher, nor a troll.  Think about that as well.

Is that really the best you can do? Private musings between people aren't the same as actual public policy advocated by anyone - you know that Trump's people, Obama's people, Bush's people, etc., had all kinds of personal conversations that have no bearing on anything that was actually done.

Lots of liberal Catholics dream of a day when the church stops being so uptight, especially on issues like contraception, where over 90% of Catholics ignore church "teachings." There was nothing unusual about these scary emailz.

I also think it's hilarious how all these super-right-wing evangelicals, who normally don't even believe Catholics are Christian or can go to Heaven, suddenly care so much about us when they can score a political point or two.

I don't think the left comprehends whatsoever the level of fear religious conservatives have of them in power. They can argue the Democrat establishment would never do the things their supporters want to do to religious conservatives, but few religious conservatives are going to believe that. Why? Because the political landscape changes and the left's social positions change with it. If the left is correct that we are on some arc of social progress, the they're of course going to be against the "next step" right up until they're for it. It's like an entire ideology built around perpetually moving the goal posts.

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

If you don't agree with Roman Catholicism, don't be a Catholic.  No one's forcing you.  

If you don't want to be an Evangelical, you don't have to be one.  Jesus doesn't twist arms.  Christianity is proselytizing, but not Jihadist.

A church that accepts homosexuality as an acceptable behavior is a church that has abandoned Scripture as being Authoritative.  It's just another book, no more an authority than The Cat In The Hat.  That's fine, too; millions of Americans believe just that.  But if you do believe that, don't come at me with a Bible and tell me I'm wrong, because I'll tell you that your argument is rubbish because you don't believe Scripture to be authoritative, and you're probably wrongly dividing the Word.  When it comes to the authority of Scripture, I'm going to call folks when they try to have it both ways.

It is not hypocritical whatsoever and perfectly ideologically consistent for someone to be a faithful Christian, simply not believe the entire Bible to be the literal word of God and do what they think - based on the broader, more important teachings of Christ - God's will actually is RE: tolerance.  They're not worse Christians than you are.

[DC Al Fine]

If you really believe abortion is murder, you've gotta vote Democratic, because the abortion rate always goes down under Democratic presidents and up under Republican presidents, as Democratic policies actually have a reducing effect on the count.

Or you can not believe in consequentialism.

His assertion isn't even true.

If you don't agree with Roman Catholicism, don't be a Catholic.  No one's forcing you. 

If you don't want to be an Evangelical, you don't have to be one.  Jesus doesn't twist arms.  Christianity is proselytizing, but not Jihadist.

A church that accepts homosexuality as an acceptable behavior is a church that has abandoned Scripture as being Authoritative.  It's just another book, no more an authority than The Cat In The Hat.  That's fine, too; millions of Americans believe just that.  But if you do believe that, don't come at me with a Bible and tell me I'm wrong, because I'll tell you that your argument is rubbish because you don't believe Scripture to be authoritative, and you're probably wrongly dividing the Word.  When it comes to the authority of Scripture, I'm going to call folks when they try to have it both ways.

False. Just because your prick pastor told you that Episcopals are heretics (I'm not being dramatic by using that word - you yourself used it awhile back while referring to pro-gay Christians) doesn't mean it's true. The Bible is the bedrock of the Episcopal Church, Lutherans, plenty of other pro-LGBT denominations.

You're kidding right?

The Episcopal church can't even defrock a Bishop who denies the resurrection and you call the Bible it's bedrock?! What a farce. Most of the mainline denominations were disbelieving the scriptures decades before gay rights became an issue.

[7,052,770]

If you really believe abortion is murder, you've gotta vote Democratic, because the abortion rate always goes down under Democratic presidents and up under Republican presidents, as Democratic policies actually have a reducing effect on the count.

Or you can not believe in consequentialism.

His assertion isn't even true.

Wait, are you denying that abortion rates fell under Clinton and Obama and rose under Bush, or just asserting that those trends weren't the result of presidential policy on abortion?

The best way to reduce the abortion rate is to reduce unwanted pregnancies altogether with policies like more available contraception (thanks Obama) and more comprehensive (ie, not "abstinence only") sex education. Simply making abortion illegal accomplishes nothing - women have been getting them for tens of thousands of years and will continue to if they really want them.

If you don't agree with Roman Catholicism, don't be a Catholic.  No one's forcing you.  

If you don't want to be an Evangelical, you don't have to be one.  Jesus doesn't twist arms.  Christianity is proselytizing, but not Jihadist.

A church that accepts homosexuality as an acceptable behavior is a church that has abandoned Scripture as being Authoritative.  It's just another book, no more an authority than The Cat In The Hat.  That's fine, too; millions of Americans believe just that.  But if you do believe that, don't come at me with a Bible and tell me I'm wrong, because I'll tell you that your argument is rubbish because you don't believe Scripture to be authoritative, and you're probably wrongly dividing the Word.  When it comes to the authority of Scripture, I'm going to call folks when they try to have it both ways.

False. Just because your prick pastor told you that Episcopals are heretics (I'm not being dramatic by using that word - you yourself used it awhile back while referring to pro-gay Christians) doesn't mean it's true. The Bible is the bedrock of the Episcopal Church, Lutherans, plenty of other pro-LGBT denominations.

You're kidding right?

The Episcopal church can't even defrock a Bishop who denies the resurrection and you call the Bible it's bedrock?! What a farce. Most of the mainline denominations were disbelieving the scriptures decades before gay rights became an issue.

You're deliberately picking out one extreme example of an Episcopal saying something outlandish -- obviously there are plenty of off-the-wall things said by random Catholic, Baptist, etc., clerics too. The Episcopal Church doesn't formally believe what Spong does, and neither do virtually all of its members.

The Episcopal mass has 3 readings - 1 old testament, 1 new, and 1 gospel -- each Sunday. And not just a random passage here and there, but many paragraphs that takes a few minutes to read aloud so you get the full context. Then during the homily the priest relates all 3 readings into the point. Compare that to a more typical protestant service where the preacher drones on for an hour about whatever he wants, maybe tying in an out-of-context sentence from the Bible here and there if it can be spun to fit into his point. The Bible is the most central in the worship of churches who follow the Catholic mass style. Nobody takes every single word of the Bible literally, but the mass simply couldn't occur without great respect to the words and lessons of it.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

For the record, abortion rates did not rise under Bush.  In fact, they fell under the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2.  Of course facts can sometimes be inconvenient for those who want to push a special narrative. 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

[DC Al Fine]

If you really believe abortion is murder, you've gotta vote Democratic, because the abortion rate always goes down under Democratic presidents and up under Republican presidents, as Democratic policies actually have a reducing effect on the count.

Or you can not believe in consequentialism.

His assertion isn't even true.

Wait, are you denying that abortion rates fell under Clinton and Obama and rose under Bush, or just asserting that those trends weren't the result of presidential policy on abortion?

The former. As Rayette noted, your assertion is false.

The best way to reduce the abortion rate is to reduce unwanted pregnancies altogether with policies like more available contraception (thanks Obama) and more comprehensive (ie, not "abstinence only") sex education. Simply making abortion illegal accomplishes nothing - women have been getting them for tens of thousands of years and will continue to if they really want them.

Why is this an either or question? No one argues for increased welfare benefits and legalized theft.

Second, your thousands of years argument is monumentally stupid. Pedos have been molesting kids for millennia. We best legalize it since they're going to do it anyway.

You're deliberately picking out one extreme example of an Episcopal saying something outlandish -- obviously there are plenty of off-the-wall things said by random Catholic, Baptist, etc., clerics too. The Episcopal Church doesn't formally believe what Spong does, and neither do virtually all of its members.

Sure, but they let him keep a position of power.  That's the key point. The man was preaching heresy and he was allowed to keep his position and lead the flock astray. Where then is the respect for the Biblical record? Baptists at least have the excuse of decentralization for their nuts.

Furthermore, Spong is just one example. Let's use my own Presbyterian tradition. If we use Matthew 7:20 (By your fruits you shall know them) as our guide, the PCUSA cares more about women's ordination than the resurrection, since they are far more willing to exclude ministers who oppose women's ordination. What's more this has been going on for a very, very long time. Fosdick was preaching the sort of stuff I'm criticizing in the 1920's .

The Episcopal mass has 3 readings - 1 old testament, 1 new, and 1 gospel -- each Sunday. And not just a random passage here and there, but many paragraphs that takes a few minutes to read aloud so you get the full context. Then during the homily the priest relates all 3 readings into the point. Compare that to a more typical protestant service where the preacher drones on for an hour about whatever he wants, maybe tying in an out-of-context sentence from the Bible here and there if it can be spun to fit into his point. The Bible is the most central in the worship of churches who follow the Catholic mass style. Nobody takes every single word of the Bible literally, but the mass simply couldn't occur without great respect to the words and lessons of it.

But what good is the liturgy if they don't really respect the Bible They can read Paul in their epistle reading, but if they toss him out in practice... well as Christ said, "by your fruits you shall know them". Besides liturgy is more a function of history. Compare the LCMS or PCA to BRTD's church or a liberal Baptist congegation.

Also your comment of going out of context is invalid. Putnam and Campbell noted in their books American Grace, that liberal churches are actually more likely to politicize sermons than conservative ones. While we should be seeking to get rid of non-expository preaching in all churches, this indicates that conservatives are more likely to stick to the text.

[DC Al Fine]

It is not hypocritical whatsoever and perfectly ideologically consistent for someone to be a faithful Christian, simply not believe the entire Bible to be the literal word of God and do what they think - based on the broader, more important teachings of Christ - God's will actually is RE: tolerance.  They're not worse Christians than you are.

I'm having a hard time getting how one can read the Gospels and get 'tolerance' as a major teaching of Christ. Even ignoring my Christian preconceptions, Jesus of Nazareth can be quite prickly at times.