The Rev. Vosper Again

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Jae said:
What is an evangelical? I'd agree with this definition. An evangelical is someone who holds the Bible to be their highest authority in Christian faith and practice, feels it is very important for them to encourage non-Christians to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, believe that Jesus Christ's death on the cross is the only sacrifice that can remove the penalty of sin, and believe that only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God's gift of everlasting life.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your definition. Was that so hard?

The definition comes (almost word for word) from a study commissioned by the National Association of Evangelicals and Life Way Research, based in Nashville, Tennessee. For the purposes of the study they identified what they considered to be evangelical leaders and theologians. That hand picked group narrowed down 17 possible statements to four and declared that to be the definition of "evangelical." There was then a 1000 person telephone survey which was not given options other than to agree or disagree with whether that was a reasonable definition of "evangelical," and a little more than half agreed with the definition. Not all who were surveyed were evangelicals. The study estimated that about 30% of Americans can be considered "evangelical" by that definition. Of course, the very process of developing this definition of "evangelical" which would fit the views of the organizations who wanted to define "evangelical" according to their own understanding then allows them (and those who agree with them) to exclude as "evangelical" anyone who doesn't fit their definition. And the definition certainly can't be questioned because Life Way Research itself declared the process to be valid and reliable. And if they say their own process is valid, then it must be valid. Right?

So your definition was developed by a relatively small, handpicked (and therefore likely biased) group of scholars, and then tested by 1000 people - a good number of whom weren't evangelicals, probably didn't really care all that much and were likely just willing to say "Sure. Sounds good to me." Who can argue with that?

(Most of my information about the survey comes from Christianity Today)
 
revsdd said:
Thank you for your definition. Was that so hard?

The definition comes (almost word for word) from a study commissioned by the National Association of Evangelicals and Life Way Research, based in Nashville, Tennessee. For the purposes of the study they identified what they considered to be evangelical leaders and theologians. That hand picked group narrowed down 17 possible statements to four and declared that to be the definition of "evangelical." There was then a 1000 person telephone survey which was not given options other than to agree or disagree with whether that was a reasonable definition of "evangelical," and a little more than half agreed with the definition. Not all who were surveyed were evangelicals. The study estimated that about 30% of Americans can be considered "evangelical" by that definition. Of course, the very process of developing this definition of "evangelical" which would fit the views of the organizations who wanted to define "evangelical" according to their own understanding then allows them (and those who agree with them) to exclude as "evangelical" anyone who doesn't fit their definition. And the definition certainly can't be questioned because Life Way Research itself declared the process to be valid and reliable. And if they say their own process is valid, then it must be valid. Right?

So your definition was developed by a relatively small, handpicked (and therefore likely biased) group of scholars, and then tested by 1000 people - a good number of whom weren't evangelicals, probably didn't really care all that much and were likely just willing to say "Sure. Sounds good to me." Who can argue with that?

(Most of my information about the survey comes from Christianity Today)
Click to expand...

Actually Steven, my definition came largely from my own noggin, based on being in an evangelical denomination for the past 20-or-so years and whose Statement of Belief I'm reasonably-well informed on.

At any rate, I now await your response as to how Coren fits this definition. Your substantiation please.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Can you think of any worse sin, PG13, than to deny a person full humanity based on a biological characteristic, like gender, colour, orientation? Seems like basic human rights to me.
Click to expand...

Didn't make God's top ten.

Remember when schoolyard bullies would pin the little kid on the ground. Sit on their chest and dig their knees into their little biceps so they couldn't move. Then hork up a big snot and dangle it from their lips over the little kids face and threaten to spit in their face if they don't say something submissive?

Liberals have been doing that for some time now.
 
I would say that every one of the "top 10" jewish mitzvot can be summarized by Jesus' (and Hillel's) two commandments: to love God, and one's neighbour as oneself. To be bigoted towards another person on the basis of biological characteristics, like race, gender, orientation, is to be unloving of one's neighbour.
 
More simply, denying rights to someone over an innate characteristic that hurts no one is wrong. Moreover, it is a choice to deny those rights. Some Christians want to compare the condemnation of their choice to deny rights with their condemnation of the innate characteristic. Umm...no.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Actually, you're correct. Homophobia is a mis-nomer. It's really a nasty sub-variant of sexism.
Click to expand...
HEterosexism is my preferred term. Because I really have little issue with people being afraid of something (even if said fear is irrational). I have a big issue with people trying to insist that others fit into little boxes...
 
GordW said:
HEterosexism is my preferred term. Because I really have little issue with people being afraid of something (even if said fear is irrational). I have a big issue with people trying to insist that others fit into little boxes...
Click to expand...
Forcing people into tiny boxes sounds more like a fetish.
 
crazyheart said:
I am wondering , if Jesus walked the earth as a man who was born, lived and died, how

can we pray to him, worship him, and call him Jesus the God?

God was here in the beginning and somewhere is still here as the creator>

I understand worshipping, praying to God but cannot see the same for Jesus. Help me here.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think you are alone in preferring praying to God than to Jesus. I can't think of anywhere Jesus asked us to pray to him. But Paul in Romans says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

According to John, Jesus was there at the beginning, before the world, then made flesh, born, lived, died, and then was raised from the dead, walked among his followers and then ascended into heaven and is at the right hand of God.

Jesus did tell us how to pray to the Father and said that we could ask anything in his (Jesus) name. So he does take a role as intercessor.

If Jesus is not risen and alive, Christianity is a load of crap.

Many people today have visions of Jesus. Not metaphorical Jesus, but one who lives and speaks.
 
chansen said:
Give it time. Someone in the UCCan will complain bitterly about her, and everyone will be outraged that she is seeking attention again.
Click to expand...
Will be back for the next instalment of the Vosper story in that case. We might need a new thread. :whistle:
 
They also let her detractors achieve the satisfaction of knowing that they've struck a blow against people always talking about her.
 
Hyperbole goes both ways I've noticed.

It's really ridiculous hyperbole for conservative Christians to say that an atheist billboard is an "attack" on Christianity.

It's equally ridiculous hyperbole when progressive Christians say that a denomination that has four variations on its statement of doctrine - all of which are overtly theistic; all of which say in their own way that Jesus was God in the flesh - is engaging in a "witch hunt" by deciding that a minister who publicly proclaims herself to be an atheist and can't really seem to say she agrees with any of those four statements of faith isn't capable of being effective in ministry - and being effective in ministry doesn't mean being popular or getting lots of publicity or even being a good pastor. It essentially means being able to effectively teach and proclaim THE FAITH of the church.
 
Gretta has been in the news again this week. Announcements have been made that Toronto Oasis (a secular gathering) will be launched on Sunday, February 12 in the downtown core.
 
She seems to be planning to be DSL'ed. I suppose it's good to have a backup plan, and the writing does appear to be on the wall.

If so, it's good that she tried. I'm not sure she could have saved the denomination, but it was an audacious attempt and I'm glad someone said the things she said from within. It's far easier to ignore people like me than it is to ignore an ordained minister.
 
Odd. That assumes that the United church is doomed to failure. To me, the ucc is stronger with the smaller group of membership

I see alot of millenials re engaging having found a need for something more.

Greta wasnt trying to save the ucc. She was trying to change us to her image
 
That I understand, her pension is unaffected. She did her job for many years and she earned that money. So yes, you'll likely be paying an atheist for a long while. But hey, you guys cost her a lot in legal fees.

I'm not aware of a UCCan connection to Oasis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top