Posted on 05/07/2007 7:26:37 AM PDT by meandog
No, it doesn't. Especially since every time some American protestant church takes some goofy liberal position (example: ordains gays), some "Evangelical" freeper will say "Well that's just mainline protestants being corrupted by soecity again, our evagelical church down in Missouri would NEVER do that kinda stuff..."
Jimmy Carter, who is pro-abortion, pro-gay, etc., appears to be in fine standing with the southern baptist convention. He even teaches Sunday school. If Jimmy Carter is Evangelical, then Evangelical certainly isn't codewwork for "conservative, traditional protestants"
Though if Jimmy Carter and Harriet Miers are good examples of the "Evangelical" wing of Protestants, then I'm sure we have much to worry about them being "intolerant" of other faiths.
Jimmy Carter hasn’t been a member of the Southern Baptist Convention for years.
Is George W. Bush "Evangelical"? He says he found Jesus and it changed his life. He also says Islam is a "religion of peace". Bush is a Methodist, wouldn't the Methodist church be considered largely non-evangelical? I went to Methodist services once and they seemed pretty liberal, both spiritually and politically.
Honestly as I Catholic I see no difference between "Evangelical" Protestants and the rest of 'em. Some may be liberal, some may be conservative, but the basic beliefs are the same. Protestants are always Protestants.
The basic variations of Christianity can be summed up as 1) CATHOLIC (various kinds of Catholics include Jesuit, Sedevacantist, Latin Rite, Byzantine) 2) PROTESTANT (Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, I have no idea where "Evangelicals" fit in, since apparently they can be members of any Protestant denomination), 3) ORTHODOX (divided by ethnic groups: Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc.), and 4) OTHER - Christians who follow basic doctrine but don't fit into one of those categories, like Restorationists, or they overlap, like Anglicians basically being Catholic doctrine along with Protestant ideals.
Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, I list as a separate, new religions based on Christian ideas -- but not part of the "Christian" faith, per say.
So where do Evangelicals come in? What specifically sets them apart? If I call myself "Evangelical" tomorrow, does that make me one?
I didn’t claim who was or wasn’t evangelical.
I do know that when looking at someone like Bill Clinton, it is hard to believe that he is actually a Christian... in that, as far as the media has been able to determine, he hasn’t attended church since leaving office... *unless of course it was for a political function.
On the other hand, I do not have the power of God to say that this person or that, be they Methodist, Baptist or Catholic, is or isn’t a Christian. That is up to God to determine.
My belief was that to be evangelical, you must evangelize... to preach the gosple to others. It’s just a simple definition.
Thomas Jefferson, Deist
John Quincy Adams, Unitarian
Millard Fillmore, Unitarian
William Howard Taft, Unitarian
Jefferson liked the stories in the bible and followed them but pretty much considered them all to be fictional fables for living a good moral life, so he was no more Christian than someone who lived their life according to Hans Christian Anderson’s stories. Unitarians profess a belief in Jesus Christ but do not consider him divine, so I do not consider them Christians. I doubt any of these four candidates had a hard time getting elected because they refused to accept basic Christian doctrine.
“Evangelicals” are supposed to have all this power and influence in America but it seems nobody can even figure out what an Evangelical is. Are they even organized? I would say the influence of the “religions right” has more to do with devout, church-going people of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox beliefs than any so-called “evangelical” community out there. Bush got the votes of 50% of Roman Catholics but 80% of devout, church-going Catholics. That’s as big as difference as the differences between the supposed “evangelical” movement and “mainline” Protestants. Perhaps the “Evangelical” movement is simply church-going protestants as opposed to the secular ones.
He reminds me of a oily, smooth actor in either a used-car commercial or a toothpaste commercial...not attractive to this woman.
You forgot to add that the blessings on all people are conditional upon membership in the mormon church and obedience to all its rules, and if you die before you fulfill that requirement, why they will kindly take care of that with baptism for the dead. Pretty misleading statement.
Wanna explain why if the so-called Nephite disciples are wandering around alive, and if John the apostle is still alive somewhere (3 Nephi 28:6-7 "ye shall never taste death"; D&C 7:2-3), how it is that the church fully disappeared? These disciples aren't the church? Why did God need Joseph Smith if He had these folks still alive in His employment?
Minor little discrepancies like the above aren't worrisome in mormon life.
Tell Hillary that before she gets her extra-special personalized Executive Order pen. Then go back and read Clinton's EOs...remember Paul Begala, ""Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."?
Remember EO 13083 and how Congress forced Clinton to cancel the order?
Not me!
Executive Order #13083, which essentially gathers all legislative authority to the Executive Branch and takes it away from state and local governments [not to mention Congress], legitimizes the dozens of federal agencies. By doing so, any president from now on could, by using any number of previously approved emergency measures, use the various federal agencies to help him carry out an order to keep him in office past his constitutional limit. Coupled with 13083, the same provisions of law -- which have allowed every president since FDR unusual, and, shall we say, extra-constitutional authority -- could also be employed during a time of major domestic unrest. Bypassing Congress and making presidential 'executive orders and proclamations' with the full force of law is so commonplace in the latter 20th Century that most Americans think a president has always had this authority. This is just one example of an Executive Order. Hillary would have the same advisors, including her nominal "husband" to help her frame many more.
Seems likely to me. I’m a Mormon, and Mitt doesn’t seem to be conservative enough to represent me. I’m not finding a good fit for my beliefs in any of the folks I know anything about, but that could basically be stated as Rudi McRomney... I’m definitely open for info on the other candidates.
I’ve always been under the impression that if someone calls themselves an evangelical protestant, that they predicated it upon a strong connection to their church, and “Bible-believing”... or a strict adherence to the Word. This is just my sense of the meaning.
I think Dobson recently said evangelical means you are actively supporting missionary work... or spreading the gospel. I am not quoting him, here. It was just the impression I got.
I’m no religious authority. I suggest you continue to look if you want a stronger definition than what I have offered.
If Hillary is the Executive, we know the WOT will end. When that happens, America will be targeted again by al Qaeda or its ilk, and we WILL see America go through one state of emergency after another. Boy, just imagine what Hillary could accomplish “for the good of the people” during a “national crisis.”
Just listing the tenets of the Mormon church and the Christian church. And they are not the same. Facts are not thuggery.
I’m a baptized Christian and I will NOT vote for Mitt......
>He reminds me of a oily, smooth actor in either a used-car commerecial or a toothpaste commercial...not attractive to this woman.<
No, male Barbie dolls with pomaded and dyed hair, a salon tan, and canned answers are not my cup of tea, either.
I didn't watch Jim Carrey in The Mask, but he reminds me of pictures of Jim's character.
I’m just wondering about what is the goal of evangelical political activism...is it to “bring back” a Christian nation, or is it just like any other interest group vying for political power. I wrote about this in my own blog in the context of Al Sharpton:
The inconsistency of many evangelicals really bugs me. Some seem fine with the GOP’s answer to John Kerry. More importantly, some would on one hand call themselves fighting for a Christian nation that treasures absolutism rather than relativism, but on the other hand support for the highest office a man who is a member of what most evangelicals would consider a cult. If there were no other choices, I could see why an evangelical would support Romney, but there are plenty.
I am also an evangelical, and so I take a lot of this stuff to heart. If evangelicals support Romney, we cannot claim to hold absolute moral values, we cannot possibly desire a Christian nation, and we demonstrate that all we want is power, just like everyone else.
People ask, should Christians vote for a mormon?
I answer why not, Mormons vote for Christians all the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.