User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 35

  1. #21
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't think anyone is telling you what your political preferences are, but Gingrinch did just win South Carolina.

    However, I'll point out (kind of in support of what you said) that the largest group of evangelical leaders a week or two (including Dobson, who was credited in the past as being a 'kingmaker' in the conservative political circles) voted to support Santorum, who i think even more reflects both their values and the kind of image they want to project for a viable political candidate. Gingrinch came up wanting.

    I expect this support to shift over to Gingrinch (as opposed to Romney) if Santorum drops out, but obviously Santorum was their most suitable candidate of choice.
    You're correct that Santorum is the candidate they should be voting for, but evangelical's #1 priority is getting the Muslim, socialist, nazi, atheist out of the White House. If they have to support someone like Gingrich to achieve that, it looks like they're willing to do it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #22
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You're correct that Santorum is the candidate they should be voting for
    Well, not just "should," but actually had their leaders openly endorse. I can't tell you if it's because Santorum effectively won Iowa, which made him seem more viable than Gingrich, or if they would have voted for Gingrich if he had won Iowa.

    I do agree that Santorum is much more the candidate these guys want in terms of reflecting their values better, and that a primary motivation is to get rid of the 'corruptive Other' influence... aka anything not christian, god-fearing, and USA lovin'.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #23
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, not just "should," but actually had their leaders openly endorse. I can't tell you if it's because Santorum effectively won Iowa, which made him seem more viable than Gingrich, or if they would have voted for Gingrich if he had won Iowa.

    I do agree that Santorum is much more the candidate these guys want in terms of reflecting their values better, and that a primary motivation is to get rid of the 'corruptive Other' influence... aka anything not christian, god-fearing, and USA lovin'.
    I do think there's one other aspect at play here. Santorum doesn't have a strong presence, but Gingrich does. What Gingrich did in that debate a few nights ago, where he told off that CNN guy (I don't remember his name) is something many evangelicals fantasize about, given that they believe the media is part of a leftist conspiracy against Christianity.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #24
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I do think there's one other aspect at play here. Santorum doesn't have a strong presence, but Gingrich does. What Gingrich did in that debate a few nights ago, where he told off that CNN guy (I don't remember his name) is something many evangelicals fantasize about, given that they believe the media is part of a leftist conspiracy against Christianity.
    Okay, I'll give you that. Gingrinch's a far better speaker and able to "stick it to the other side" and fight; Santorum is more like the glossy epitome of their moral ideals but doesn't have much presence.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #25
    sswwwaagggg gmanyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I know. I have always had trouble getting my mind around it, I've had issues in every election. I remember when Bush used the hardcore conservatives in SC in 2000 to get the nomination over McCain (who, at the time, I had respected), especially by spreading slurs and innuendo about his wife and his kids; and I was disgusted that Bush allowed it. To me, a vocal Christian would have told his supporters to knock that stuff off; but Bush was an opportunist. I have many more examples where that came from, but I just don't understand how doing lip service to conservative christian policy counts as "christian virtue" when character does not conform to said virtues.
    To be fair, from what I've learned about Bush's time as governor he was a pretty cool guy. It wasn't until the whole presidential thing that he lost it. Then again, I haven't researched it much, so I could just be making shit up here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think that is one of the failings of US morality debate... that the church places hot-button issues like the gay rights or abortion issues above that of much more prevalent issues... homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised. One of my best friends, another INTP who was a missionary in Haiti for a few years, feels the same way. But the issue of the homeless and the poor is not as burning/immediate one as the other issues, I guess, and solutions are not clear (you can't legislate hunger away), so I guess it sits on the backburner.
    Also to be fair, abortion is a pretty huge issue if you believe that fetuses really are humans. I'm a bit torn on the issue myself. But the thing is that there isn't a whole lot to be done about it at the moment, and there are plenty of things to be done about poverty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You're correct that Santorum is the candidate they should be voting for, but evangelical's #1 priority is getting the Muslim, socialist, nazi, atheist out of the White House. If they have to support someone like Gingrich to achieve that, it looks like they're willing to do it.
    Gotta stop those communist Muslim Nazi atheists. If they gain power who knows what could happen.

    Also, while I don't know a whole lot about the Republican candidates (for how much I like politics you'd think I'd know more about the current candidates), I think that Romney has the best shot against Obama. So if the conservative goal is to take the White House back, then they should probably vote for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtledove View Post
    I'm of the Evangelical type and I think Newt Gingrich is the biggest boil on the butt of the Republican candidates. Don't stereotype.
    Hey man, I'm a Christian too and I started this topic. I'm not happy about it either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    I'm starting to see you and your avatar as a cloud of odor that eminates from trashy threads.

  6. #26
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gmanyo View Post
    To be fair, from what I've learned about Bush's time as governor he was a pretty cool guy. It wasn't until the whole presidential thing that he lost it. Then again, I haven't researched it much, so I could just be making shit up here.
    That seems to be the gist of what I've heard as well. I find it telling that as soon as he got done in office, he just disappeared. I think he was happy to leave and get back to his life.

    He also seemed to do much better as Governor of Texas and helped bring polarized parties together (from what I've read); but as soon as he was cherry-picked by the 'pub bigwigs to be their candidate of choice for the 2000 election, he seemed to get caught up in things and make it into some sort of holy mission by which he could redeem the mistakes of his life.

    Also to be fair, abortion is a pretty huge issue if you believe that fetuses really are humans.
    It's definitely a big issue in Christian thought; however, why are fetuses more important in terms of time and energy than children who have already been born?

    Also, while I don't know a whole lot about the Republican candidates (for how much I like politics you'd think I'd know more about the current candidates), I think that Romney has the best shot against Obama. So if the conservative goal is to take the White House back, then they should probably vote for him.
    If Romney is not very different from Obama, then they're not very motivated to get him in the White House.

    Besides, having a 'pub president who looks like Obama is not nearly as fulfilling as having a Dem president doing the same things, who you can then react against and tear down without having to create anything yourself. Strategically, it's wiser to be in the reactive position than trying to support Romney as "pseudo-Obama."
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #27
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Preachers are inherently hypocritical when they deny their own disbelief and encourage others to believe.

  8. #28
    sswwwaagggg gmanyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That seems to be the gist of what I've heard as well. I find it telling that as soon as he got done in office, he just disappeared. I think he was happy to leave and get back to his life.

    He also seemed to do much better as Governor of Texas and helped bring polarized parties together (from what I've read); but as soon as he was cherry-picked by the 'pub bigwigs to be their candidate of choice for the 2000 election, he seemed to get caught up in things and make it into some sort of holy mission by which he could redeem the mistakes of his life.
    There's also the theory that Bush was really just being controlled by Dick Cheiny and really didn't have much to do with federal decisions. Also, I'm not too fond of Rice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    It's definitely a big issue in Christian thought; however, why are fetuses more important in terms of time and energy than children who have already been born?
    I'm not saying it does, but it's still pretty big. Big enough that I can see why people protest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    If Romney is not very different from Obama, then they're not very motivated to get him in the White House.

    Besides, having a 'pub president who looks like Obama is not nearly as fulfilling as having a Dem president doing the same things, who you can then react against and tear down without having to create anything yourself. Strategically, it's wiser to be in the reactive position than trying to support Romney as "pseudo-Obama."
    I still think that since the Republicans are a very tightly knit party with a strong will, it should matter more to them that their party gets into office than it is for a certain person gets into office. It seems that the Republicans will pretty much back anyone who runs under their name just to keep their party unified (take, for example, the Tea Party).
    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    I'm starting to see you and your avatar as a cloud of odor that eminates from trashy threads.

  9. #29
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gmanyo View Post

    I think they are almost always Christian in the sense of arguing about moral decay. There are other arguments against gay marriage (I think Ron Paul actually thinks that marriage in general should not be dealt with at a Federal level, though I'd have to double check) but those aren't the ones I'm referring to.

    My point was that Christians are worried that there is a slippery slope when it comes to gay marriage; that they think it will lead to the moral decay of marriage. I've heard people argue "What's next? Paedophelia? Bestiality?" which is not a good argument. But I think that in reality divorce is a much bigger issue, especially in such circumstances surrounding Gingrich's ones, so I sense that morality is not so much an issue as money and fear of those that are different, even though conservative evangelicals parade the idea that morality is of utmost importance.

    My problem right now is that the people that most Conservative Evangelicals are voting for are so far from "good Christians" that its flabbergasting that people think that they are.

    Actually, my biggest beef with the evangelical conservative movement is the hypocrisy of focusing on social issues like gay rights and not on ones like the poor. I really have a problem when people are talking about lowering taxes on the rich and say things like "What right does the government have to take their hard earned money, then give it to poor people who are lazy and will just squander the money?" For one, the lives of the poor suck. There is a point that some people take advantage of social programs, but there are plenty of poor people that work their asses off and never get anywhere. There is more luck than hard work involved in getting rich. Also, there are like, 6 passages about homosexuality and about a million about helping the poor. I understand if they're arguing the position that lowering restraints on the rich and large business owners will help the economy. I just don't get the "Christian" argument about defending the rights of the rich but ignoring the repression of poor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post

    I know. I have always had trouble getting my mind around it, I've had issues in every election. I remember when Bush used the hardcore conservatives in SC in 2000 to get the nomination over McCain (who, at the time, I had respected), especially by spreading slurs and innuendo about his wife and his kids; and I was disgusted that Bush allowed it. To me, a vocal Christian would have told his supporters to knock that stuff off; but Bush was an opportunist. I have many more examples where that came from, but I just don't understand how doing lip service to conservative christian policy counts as "christian virtue" when character does not conform to said virtues.

    I think that is one of the failings of US morality debate... that the church places hot-button issues like the gay rights or abortion issues above that of much more prevalent issues... homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised. One of my best friends, another INTP who was a missionary in Haiti for a few years, feels the same way. But the issue of the homeless and the poor is not as burning/immediate one as the other issues, I guess, and solutions are not clear (you can't legislate hunger away), so I guess it sits on the backburner.
    The thing with American conservativism, including evangelicalism, is national IDENTITY. From debating with them online for over 10 years, culminating in reading this book
    http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Lord-Fun...7543287&sr=1-1
    by the brother of someone on a Christian forum, it is clear that they have to PROVE that this country, and its system of capitalism was "BETTER" than everything else int he world.

    Right off the bat, slavery and racism were big blots on this record. So they had to completely ignore it, except to oppose changes generations ago, and once these changes were forced anyway (and culture, including often their own children, rebelled against the whole paradigm), they then went after the "forces" they saw responsible for these changes: the "socialists" and liberals, the sexual revolution, cultural changes like rock & roll, minorities (the beneficiaries of many of the changes), religious "modernism", the century old archenemy of evolutionism, education and the media (who promoted a lot of this), and sometimes even the Jews (seen as pulling the strings behind nearly all of these movements; even as many Rightists posed as staunch friends of "Israel" and Jewry in general, based on readings of Gen.12 and the dispensational theology).

    The premise is that God "chose" the nation, which included subjugating others and taking their land, resources and labor. The Old Testament could be cited in support of this. (This ignores that the New Covenant supersedes all of that).

    So they decided that those things weren't sin, and compensated for this by focusing purely on sexual sins, which they put themselves forth as being totally above.

    The inital basis was Calvinism and a version of it called "covenant theology". The "chosen" were identified by both being prosperous (including the power to gain and maintain prosperity—"providence"), as well as their morality, that is, "following Biblical principles". God, in His sovereignty divided man into "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath", and would take from one and give to the other, both in this life and after death.

    Later, Arminianism arose within Protestantism, through the influnce of groups such as the Anabaptists, and later, the Wesleys. Many of these groups initially opposed the politics of the more established churches, but eventually adopted them as they mixed in the culture.
    Their focus was on "personal choice", both in salvation, as well as morality. Hence, the American "can do" spirit of individual piety, "hard work", and "earning" one's prosperity (and that all prosperity of those who represent the system can be assumed to have been justly "earned").

    These two strains blended into the American Christianity we had come to know. They were both chosen by God in addition to proving themselves "worthy" through the great nation their fathers built and which they defend.
    Whatever goes wrong must be blamed on someone else; everyone else; if not denied as wrong to begin with. In either system (election or free-will), the "cursed" people would still be "held responsible" for their condition; hence, the blame.

    The world was truly divided between the "bad" and "good", even while scripture declared "all under sin". They denounced all other religions and philosophies and moderate forms of Christianity for not believing in the doctrine of the sinfulness of all man. But while maintaining that so vigorously, they were able to exclude themselves from it on the premise of being "chosen" (election/justification) and "changed" ("Regeneration/Sanctification"). Therefore, everything they believed and did must have been right. All sin comes from everyone else. (This was the same thinking as the Israelites who Christ dealt with. Of course, the difference was, they rejected Him, while this new "chosen" group accepted Him).

    So this is why the rich-favoring system of capitalism has to be justified at all costs, and the poor and minorities blamed for their plights. To support it is to "love" America and all it stands for (including "God"), and to oppose it is to "hate" America. They cannot admit any inherent evil or sin in the system.

    So 30 years ago, listening to them was like watching super hero cartoons on TV. You had the total good guys and the total bad guys, "evil empires", inferior cultures and subcultures, and everyone out to get the good Christians. (I now recognize my disgusted reactions to all this, even as a teen just beginning to become aware of world politics and religion, as a bitterly envious Demonic Fi projection. And the way they extolled their collective selves; the "Christian nation", was something to envy!)

    Over the years since, the evangelicals at large have sort of mellowed out. They had been mellowing ever since they broke away from the true [old-line] fundamentalists in the 50's (which you can read all about in that book).
    Now, it's pretty much just Dobson. And you don't hear about him as much as you used to. Robertson has sort of gone off the deep end with a lot of wild statements in recent years. Falwell is gone. You don't hear as much about Randall Terry anymore. LaHaye became more involved with his successful Left Behind novels. Robison is more into world outreach. The rest of the people you see on TV are mainly too preoccupied with some form of health & wealth (including "victorious Christian living" on a personal rather than national level) to bother with politics.

    It seemed in the 80's, they were riding high, but after even having Reagan in, with the grand climax of the defeat of the Soviets, the moral issues continued to fall to the wayside, with the Republicans becoming little more than "the lesser of two evils", in both abortion and "big government". Areas such as evolution, public morality and reverence of God, and now, gay rights, the impetus was just too great for them to have any sort of tempering influence.

    So it seems they lost a lot of steam, or just gave up, and went off into those other pursuits. To my glee, many wised up, and began realizing they had gone off track in the political zeal. Hence, a very moderate "new-evangelical" body that has become less enthusiastic about politics changing things. They realized that with their central doctrine of the fallenness of all man, it was ultimatelfy futile. Hence, the more "inner" focus much of the body has taken.

    You still have old-liners out there (BJU was an example), and while some may occasionally get involved in politics (such as Bush's campaign stop at BJU), they had all along traditionally been skeptical of politics, seeing evangelism as most important. They of course denounced liberals and socialists along with the moral slide (in addition to opposing racial progress); but were never as much into political activism to begin with, and used to criticize the evangelicals on it.
    So now, they just continue to spend most of their energy just bashing the new evangelicals on their "compromises" with "the world". They do have a point, often, as it seems the new-evangelicals often don't seem to know what to do with themselves, and many just copy popular cultural trends and Christianize them.

    So today, no politician fully embodies the values evangelicals hold. None are able to roll back the tide on abortion, gay rights and the rest of the moral issues. Most are even sliding on reducing the government. It seems the closest for will be Mormons like Romney (and I believe, Rand Paul, who long ago dropped out), but many don't want to vote for them on religious reasons. So someone like Gingrich is the next best thing (I know early on in the last election, Huckabee seemed to be liked alot by them, but he dropped out, and hasn't run again. Before that ('04) many of the more radical ones like Peroutka (Constitution Party), and most of those who opposed him only did so on the grounds that they knew he wouldn't win, and the votes would fall to the Democrats.
    Last edited by Eric B; 01-26-2012 at 02:29 PM.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  10. #30
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    PBS recently published a documentary on the role of Christianity in the US. The Christian belief that this nation was chosen by God was one of the underlying themes in that documentary.

    http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. So I just told off an Evangelical Neoconservative and thought I'd share.
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 11:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO