←
→
orichalcum: (evilwillow)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

Color me offended.

posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 01:21pm on 28/03/2007
From an article about Fred Thompson's candidacy:

"In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim [that Thompson wasn't a Christian.]. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added."

And here I thought Christian meant "people who follow the teachings of Jesus" or some such thing. (I'm willing to listen to the argument that "Christian" means "believes that Jesus is the son of God," although it's not my current definition.) Silly me.
Mood:: 'busy' busy
location: Evanston
←
→
There are 5 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] mmeubiquitous.livejournal.com at 06:56pm on 28/03/2007
Offense seconded.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] karakara98.livejournal.com at 07:34pm on 28/03/2007
That comment actually increases my interest in Thompson as potential Republican candidate, and I've wanted him to run since 1998.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] retsuko.livejournal.com at 07:45pm on 28/03/2007
It does not surprise me in the least that Focus on Family would employ someone as narrow-minded and offensive as that.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] spyscribe.livejournal.com at 07:46pm on 28/03/2007
As someone who has always self-defined "christian" from the outside looking in, I have always found the "Catholics aren't christian" "Non-evangelicals aren't christian" "people who don't agree with me aren't christian" debates kind of amusing in a detached kind of way, at least when I first encountered them more than ten years ago.

What's scary now is that the people making those arguments seem to be increasingly successful in changing the public definition of the word.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] xlagartixax.livejournal.com at 03:41am on 29/03/2007
The argument used by evangelicals is that they alone are worshipping according to the way Paul structured the "church of Christ" (little c, not to be confused with the more liberal Church of Christ, which is considered a cult by evangelicals) in the first century AD, and therefore they are the only "true Christians."

Conversations with people of this particular belief get really messy when they deny any doctrinal or historical relationship to Protestantism OR Catholicism, and claim they've existed in small informal worship groups since the first century AD with their evangelical doctrine intact.

Unfortunately, when a group goes around calling itself "the one true Christianity" and behaving offensively, it lends credibility to the belief that "true Christians" are in reality the ones like Schneeberger. 'Course it helps when they're the ones holding the megaphones and purse strings.
[link] [reply]

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
1
 2
 
 3
3
 4
 
5
 
 6
1
 7
2
 8
3
 9
1
 10
2
 11
 
12
1
 13
2
 14
 
 15
 
 16
2
 17
3
 18
 
19
1
 20
2
 21
1
 22
1
 23
 
 24
1
 25
 
26
1
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
1