What it Means to Be a Modern Evangelical

150
Evangelical, Christianity, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, mega-church, Jesus, Bible

Televangelist preacher Pat Robertson.

Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelicalism, has increasingly become a moving target in the 21st century. Though we could trace the roots of it right back through the Reformation, it gained traction as a cohesive stream of thought in American revivalism and is commonly synonymous with conservative cultural movements such as “The Christian Right” and leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Falwell. For many, it instantly reeks of fundamentalism — a loaded word that conjures up certain terms: judgmental, narrow-minded, and anti-intellectual. In fact, it’s probably easier for us to recite what we think Evangelicals are against — abortion, evolution, gay marriage — than what they are for.

I find that to be a shame.

“Evangelical” means a lot of things to a lot people. From my observations, it can be used off-the-
cuff for a cultural ideology, a set of theological beliefs, and even a political agenda.

Let me explain, as a Christ-follower and sometimes begrudgingly self-proclaimed Evangelical,
what I believe it means at its core. The common thread that runs throughout the Evangelical
designation is that it is a certain way of handling Christianity. After hundreds of years of church
tradition passed down and around the globe, it’s often hard to know what to aim at, practically
speaking. And, from the beginning, Evangelicalism offered a succinct strategy, for lack of better
terms, about what was central to the Christian faith.

The word “Evangelical” comes from the Greek word used for “Gospel,” or, more
commonly, “Good News.” The good news, as it were, was that Jesus came to declare, live,
and die for God’s loving reign as the only King who truly had power. The good news was that
when all other kingdoms and ways of life came up bankrupt, there was a Creator who loved his
creation and desired to rule them with love, justice and peace. So Evangelicalism’s four elements,
which are about spreading and inviting others into the Jesus-as-true-King story, are rooted here.

The first is what we would call Christocentric. This is a way of life based on the life, teachings, and call of Jesus. The second is that it’s Biblical. If God is King, then the Bible is the story of what it means to live well in his kingdom. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the story that defines our place in history. The third element is a focus on evangelism, or what some would term proselytizing. If Evangelicals believe that Jesus is King and that his way of life is the best possible way of life, then they are called to invite others into that same way of life. And the fourth, related to the third, is a focus on the “born again” nature of Evangelicals. In fact, “born again” is sometimes a substitute for “Evangelical.” Historically, all this really means is that an invitation into the Kingdom of God takes transformation. Jesus invites all to come as they are, but he invites them to walk further and further out of a bankrupt way of life into his life.

Evangelicals are, first and foremost, about being oriented to the love of Jesus and inviting others
into his love and life. I confess we aren’t always known for that, and you may even say we are
rarely known for that. But know that, when we call ourselves Evangelical, it’s because we
are passionate about the love of God for the world, not about judging everyone not like us.

Photo Credit: dno1967b

150

Sign up to join the discussion

Reply to this article
view profile

Petey Crowder

I'm a young adult pastor at a church in Dallas, Texas. I've lived in the South and the Pacific Northwest and consider both of those pla...

Most Mic'd Response

weekly-winner-headshot-fpo

Sal Bommarito

Mr. Crowder- Thank you for providing some insight into the true meaning of Evangelicalism. I found it very interesting. Fighting evil, turning the other cheek and living a life that mirrors our Creator are all good things. Most important is the fact that all Americans are free to worship any way they choose. Sometimes evangelicals run into some trouble when they proselytize, an important part of evangelical doctrine (you indicated this is the case in your essay). Occasionally, this means telling another person that their religion is inferior to evangelicalism. This can offend some people. A second area of concern is that it appears that evangelicals often mix religion and government, which goes against our nation's tradition to separate church and state. This can come in many forms. For instance, one may say that our federal government is not following the teachings of Christ regarding one issue or another. That may be true, but not every American is a follower of Christ. And then there are the issues of abortion and gay rights. Evangelicals use their teachings to justify their positions regarding these very controversial debates. This often creates hard feelings because, once again, not every American is a proponent of evangelical teachings. I think the Evangelical movement in the America would be served by encouraging its members to be more tolerant of others regarding controversial social issues. The ideal is that all religions in this country respect each other and work towards the common good, which is the cornerstone of our nation.

Watch the PolicyMic Video Join PolicyMic

The Discussion

But God in the Old Testament is the anti-thesis to this whole article...

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

34 Replies

  • Seamus Light 3 months ago And the one in the New Testament is...

And the one in the New Testament is just as mean and nonsensical.

He sacrifices himself TO himself in order to make a loophole in a set of rules that HE made up!

So does that mean God was wrong or lacks foresight? Couldn't he just erase original sin if he wanted? And why would he put it on our children's heads anyway?
The Bible is just a dark comedy of errors on God's part.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

33 Replies

  • Georgi Ivanov 3 months ago Fundamental paradox: you cannot be ...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Your getting closer Seamus but no c...

Fundamental paradox: you cannot be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. Having the one power makes the other one useless. Mutually excusive, therefore.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Your getting closer Seamus but no cigar yet. Try on the idea that this is Hell and see if it fits in the bible. It sure fits in reality with the religious wars, injustice, rape, murder, lies, politicians basing their words off of Machiavellian and Alinsky's works, etc. Deception to rule has been going on throughout the history of mankind. Truth is the "coming to Jesus" meeting that many wish for and what they receive will such a surprise.

"And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight"

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

31 Replies

  • Georgi Ivanov 3 months ago I'd say anybody that ever live...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Georgi - What's sin? Is it doi...

  • Seamus Light 3 months ago Alright, Ben - why would this be He...

I'd say anybody that ever lived life, asked why and changed the world, in a good or bad way, is in Hell.

After all...asking "Why?" is man's biggest sin. I'd take that to blissful ignorance.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Georgi - What's sin? Is it doing what's right and true though it may be against a "god" they proclaim? I know as a father that I don't want my children to suffer or to be ignorant. But, I guess all kids have to learn the hard way. Most never learn.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Alright, Ben - why would this be Hell?

We'd be born into this Hell if we were sinners at birth. That means we'd have original sin.
Where does original sin come from? The Genesis story.
But science shows us that our world was not spoken into existence, making Genesis false.
Therefore the events of the Garden of Eden did not occur, and would make no sense even if they did.
Thus we have no original sin, and non-sinners don't go to Hell.
So this is not Hell.


  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Your missing my debate - I know it is not. I love life and love those around me. I don't prescribe to the "theory" or what the entirety of good and evil portrays. Only the good. No one is a "sinner" unless they do harm to others. A child most certainly doesn't do that (exclusive of the nuclear waste in the diapers).

What science can't do is go to more than a few moments before the big bang. Not before in the least. Speculation of contraction and expansion (no evidence as all is expanding). So no cause for the big bang but it is acknowledged

To me, we are the garden. This earth is our garden of Eden or Hell if we make it that way. I choose my life and my garden with my love. But outside my door, it is hell. Its all in perspective and truth

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

(cont and its moments after not before the big bang...but anyway)

If you were to really study the bible there are two paths. But it isn't straight as portrayed. It is only straight in truth. Make straight the way signifies that the way is crooked. And most of mankind most certainly is. I do know straight up people without compromise to deception and all manner of evil. I know the one's here by their words. Mine are harsh as life is sometimes. I am not meek. I have no regrets. No good in them. We all are learning and all make mistakes and can't undo any of them.

That means (bible) to take what is good and reject the other. To pay close attention and not be deceived. Those who speak of "original sin" are apologetics for their "god".

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You misunderstand gensis completely Seamus.

How does one understand cold if they do not understand hot? In order to understand the 2 things, you must experience both of them. While you may be hot or cold and you can feel that, only by experiencing the difference are we able to understand what it means to be hot or cold.

Original sin is in regards to take from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In order to have knowledge and understanding of good and evil, we must experience both.

That is original sin. Believe it or not is up to you, but no doubt we are in such a world.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ben: I believe you have the right idea in terms of society being what you make it.

When I came to understand the commandments, it wasn't in the manner of religion that YOU WILL DO THIS OR GO TO HELL!! It was on the grounds of - If I steal, then it is impossible for me to exist in a society without thieves. If I murder, then my presence makes it impossible for a society without murder to exist. And so on.

I think the universe is the garden, and we(earth) are cut off from it while we learn good and evil. Because if we are allowed into that, see above. But who knows.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Is it a sin to know and eat of the tree of life even if one has tasted of good and evil? If even one can, then it is not my sin to eat of the tree of good and evil. If anyone has confessed that they can save themselves, how can anyone disagree? (Job 40:14)

Is it not between them and "god"? Let each stand before their judge if they believe they must be judged. What good are the keys to the kingdom of heaven if they are not used?

Each has a story of their life. Each must experience good and evil. In that, there is no choice regardless of religion, belief or faith. It is life. And, it is life until death do us all part - love you all. At least I've been loved ;)

Thanks Joe!

Cheers!

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ben, I'm not a Christian, and I think Christianity is the continuation of the Pharisee movement Jesus was against(aka anti-christ). I do not believe in the blood sacrifice of Jesus, and I think it is satanic. I believe the murder of Jesus killing the truth, so that the lie of this world can live(and it does).

In other words, it was IMO hijacked by the powers that be, similar to the way other such things are often hi-jacked. The Tea Party for example recently. That's what wolves do.

But when it comes to the life of Jesus, that is another story.

cont.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I just want to get that out in the open. I don't want to misled people etc. Christians are a mixed bag and I look at them individually. But I don't want to give a false impression.

Not only can you save yourself, you must save yourself.

First, to sin means to make a mistake. To repent isn't a matter of doing hail marys. To repent means to fix that mistake(or to change your way for the future if not exactly possible to fix).

This was always the highest and pretty much only true form of atonement in the Torah. The other stuff was for things like sin you didn't know about.

cont.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Sacrifices and stuff were really not worth much, and IMO probably incorrectly taken literally. But repenting for sins was always even before Jesus the highest form of Atonement.

Now, how does one repent for their sins if they don't understand they've made the mistake? Not really possible. The best one can hope to do is be so good of heart they don't sin to begin with(proverbs 8).

Knowledge of the holy is understanding(proverbs 9). Understanding is like math, while the symbols and expression may change, the understanding is universal.

cont.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

What Jesus did was provide a life example of the proper understanding, and thus the proper way to follow the commandments. And it is by following his example and the understanding that he provides that one is saved. The Last Super for example, is literally Proverbs 9. Read Proverbs 9 and you will see the same things, but rather than Jesus, it is understanding that has the table, and puts it's wine and bread on it etc.

So it's the life of Jesus that saves, not his death. And because he does these things, he is "the way, the life, the light, the truth".

cont.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Joe, these are interesting comments and thanks for sharing. I agree there are many Christians who embody what Jesus despised in the Pharisees. It is interesting that you do not believe in the blood sacrifice of Jesus. On what do you base this belief? Simply that you don’t like it? cont.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

The belief that Jesus died for our sins was the first basic belief about the meaning of the death and resurrection in Christianity, and can be traced back to 3-5 years after the event. I don’t know what “powers that be” would have inserted this belief for power’s sake. cont.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

And so by following in that example, you are in effect repenting for all your sins. Simply saying you accept Jesus as your savior is not the same thing as actually doing it.

So in that manner, it would include the "original sin". I put that in quotes because original sin isn't really a sin in itself, except that you will have to experience and will sin as a result of knowing good and evil. But if you can fix those sins, then you can be in the garden/heaven again.

And because this is understanding, you can apply that to this earth, the universe or whatever.

cont once more.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Certainly not the prostitutes, slaves and tax collectors that comprised and built the early church in the days, months, years and decades after Jesus’ alleged resurrection. cont.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

It seems your claims on the meaning of sin, Jesus’ life, salvation, and the atonement here are simply your own personal doctrines, and in opposition to what Christ said and Scriptures state. In other words, they are based on a leap of faith, not on any evidence as far as I can tell.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Also, if one goes back to the OT he can clearly see a pattern of blood sacrifice to atone for sins. I do wonder what the source of your beliefs is if not that they are more palatable than what is clearly stated in Scriptures. Please disagree with me.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Interesting conversation and thanks for sharing your thoughts since clearly it is something you feel strongly about.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

"Simply saying you accept Jesus as your savior is not the same thing as actually doing it." Agreed. It is a basic Christian belief that faith without works is not real faith at all.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

That's how I see it anyway. I can go into way more detail about things, but that's my general overall view.

And yes, it is always between you and god.

And while people can and must "save themselves". They can't really do it without the understanding. And that understanding doesn't come from man. So if you want to take that into account, to save yourself isn't exactly true. Good intentions won't get you there.

The official Christian story makes no sense to me. I was an atheist for awhile because of it. I learned outside the bible, but was floored when I read Jesus.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Hi Kenneth.

Jesus himself never talks about a blood sacrifice. What he says in the Last Super is often times used as the excuse, however if you read Proverbs 9 you will find that he is simply acting the role of understanding and wisdom in the flesh(recommend starting at Proverbs 8 and then going into 9).

The blood sacrifice claim basically turns Jesus into a whipping boy. And misleads people into thinking as long as they "believe" in him, they do not have to actually follow the path. Jesus talks strongly about this topic in Matthew 7 and other places.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I agree that some people misunderstand what faith in Christ means. I also agree he never says "I will be a blood sacrifice." But if you look at the pattern of blood sacrifice throughout the OT, and read Jesus' comments that his life will be given as a ransom for many, among others, it makes sense.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Blood sacrifices in the OT were used for "lesser" sins. I would suggest talking to a Rabbi to come to understand this. Because they are of course no longer allowed to do such, which would mean if that were the case, they could never get atonement. And while some Christians will say they won't - Jewish people certainly don't believe that.

Human sacrifice was never done as such. And the murder of Jesus was not done in anykind of sacrificial ceremony.

Jesus did sacrifice his life in order to show and give people understanding. But that is not the blood sacrifice in question.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Interesting. I would say that certainly a Rabbi is going to be biased in his view of whether Jesus' death was a sacrifice for the sins of humanity and may see what he wants to see. Consider the source. The same could be said of anyone though. The original passover event required blood sacrifice

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

of a lamb, or alternatively the firstborn of each family who did not sacrifice a lamb. Passover meal always includes lamb for that reason. At the passover in (allegedly) 33AD, you had the wine, the bread, but strangely no lamb...because the Real Lamb was sitting at the table.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

As for who's doctrine it is, there is but 1 true teacher, and there is but 1 true father. It's not me. Matthew 23.

I'm a former atheist. I grew up in the bible belt, rejected religion because of Christianity. One day I realized that atheism is ignorant. That I was still accepting what religion said as being representative of god. If I truly rejected it, then I could not accept their definition of god at all.

I became agnostic. I just said I don't know. And since I didn't know I asked questions and thought about things.

cont.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Then one day I had an spiritual experience. Thought I was going crazy, but it was followed by a time period of understanding that I couldn't ignore. Immediately I understood the commandments and the reasons and understandings for them, spirit and flesh, father and son relationship, and all kinds of stuff.

I started talking to some Christians about it. And they were like oh yeah, Jesus says this, the bible says this here, and so on. I was kind of blown away.

cont.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

When I learned, it was not in the form of expression. It was completely devoid of all labels. It's not like learning in school. Hard to explain. But no "Jesus", no direct list of commandments, just the understanding behind it.

When I read the words of Jesus after, it was like YES! YES! YES! Oh such deep understanding and truth.

Christians would say I learned from the holy spirit.

As it says in proverbs 8, "Knowledge of the holy is understanding".

So as crazy as it sounds, that's the truth. Maybe I'm nuts, I wonder. But I can't shake the understanding.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Awesome. I had a similar experience, bit different though. I sent you a msg if you want to continue the conversation.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Not all Rabbi's are what you think. There are Jews who believe Jesus represents the way, truth and all that. They just aren't big on the other stuff.

Also, there are 4 levels to the bible. Referred to as Pardes(Paradise).

I'm of no authority. I'm just offering my view, mostly because I want to be completely open and honest with people I talk about religious topics with. I don't want to give people the impression I'm belong to any particular religion etc. I will have agreements and disagreements with mainstream Christians.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Petey: Thank you for your explanation of the positive things about Evangelism in you life. I admire your call, your study for ministry and thank you for your service.

You wrote, "In fact, it’s probably easier for us to recite what we think Evangelicals are against — abortion, evolution, gay marriage — than what they are for."

Do you assert that Evangelicals aren't against those things?

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Petey Crowder 3 months ago Thanks Michael. I think many Evange...

Thanks Michael. I think many Evangelicals may be against those things but my point was that being an Evangelical isn't, by definition, about being against those things.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Gary, " judgement of anoth...

Gary,

" judgement of another's belief is unwarranted and causes strife and discord"
Sounds good but is false rhetoric.

Its by definition incorrect and is the political process and life choices. We judge the candidates by their words. We all must judge. To say, don't judge is being really "out of this world" for we make judgements everyday.

To use the rules that are defined in any system to judge that system is right and correct. It determines if the system is true or an illusion.There are four major "religions" - humanistic being one or aka wisdom of man, and the other three claim by some method to be descendants of Abraham (Jew, Christian, Islam). There are many religions but in total are small in number of believers and declining.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Gary Sanford 3 months ago I suppose judging was necessary and...

  • No longer with us
  • 3 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago We make judgments on everything - m...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago (cont) If you want truth - don&#...

We make judgments on everything - more than choice but choice also. Judgments of candidates are not just choice as a flavor of ice cream satisfying our desires. To truly make correct judgement is to weight the pro's and con's of any candidate. The same is true of law and policy creation. In this, discord and debate is needed

Religion on the other hand when speaking of "judgement" is really speaking of eternal judgment. This none of us can do. We can point out flaws in finding truth. But, do we have a blind spot ourselves? If we do, we can't see it. Hence blind. But there's a difference from self induced blindness refusing to see or face truth. As to harm, religion has caused more wars and harm. Religion is good and evil not good or evil.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

(cont)

If you want truth - don't eat of the fruit of that "tree". That which has been watered by men's words throughout history. Religion is not black nor is it white. We live in a world where three religions dominate because of a belief in multiplying believers through population growth & conversion. To sow discord in the beginning that multiplies to form uncompromising ideologies in direct conflict between them, is planning the downfall of man from the beginning. Who would do this and why should be the questions asked.

All three major religions have prophecies of the worlds destruction. Is this good? No. But, its self fulfilling unless people begin to open their minds and face ugly truths. They will not see their pending inevitable doom

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I don't think being a fundamentalist is a horrible thing. Fundamentalism is a very indeterminate concept. Aren't those who uphold strict religious Christian doctrine and take literal interpretation of the bible considered fundamentalist? I don't see a problem with upholding ones religious beliefs in a strict manner as long as those beliefs are not forced upon others AND do not impede ones ability to be reasonable in advocating for public good.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Michael Weiss 3 months ago I don't understand what you me...

I don't understand what you mean by, "...do not impede one ability to b reasonable in advocating for public good."

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Manar Hijaz 3 months ago Hi Michael, What I meant by that s...

Hi Michael,
What I meant by that statement is that someone can be so-called "fundamental" and it isn't a bad thing IF they do not let their personal religious views get in the way of fair and just laws/rules that are reasonable to all society. For example, a devote Christian can believe that a Jew has chosen the "wrong" religion however this does not mean that they should hinder the construction of synagogues or Jewish worship. Individuals can

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Manar Hijaz 3 months ago have religious beliefs and standard...

have religious beliefs and standards they abide by and at the same time tolerate and accept the equal worship of other religions as well. Now I must say, I'm not a Christian. I used Christian fundamentalism because it was discussed in the article but you can fill in the blank with any religion. Hope this clarifies the statement for you :D

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Curious thing about Evangelicals and others who call themselves "Christians". Luke 14:26-27 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.". Do Christians hate their father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters and their own life? If they do, they are Job. Job even means the "hated" in Hebrew: Strongs #347

I don't want to have anything to do with them for they are full of hate or are hypocrites and liars. Why are they so deaf and so blind? They should have listened for the yeast of the Pharisee of Pharisses has travel through the entire loaf. Narrow is the way of truth and few find it. The truth will set you free.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

12 Replies

  • Jacinda Chan 3 months ago Christians or any human are not per...

Christians or any human are not perfect. As in most religions, the holy book is twisted, and the verses you cited are taken out of context. But this article here is not to debate theology. The author is simply describing a cultural movement -- one I think he does not understand completely for he seems only to write about his personal experience without having concrete data to prove what a majority of evangelical Americans believe. To strengthen this article, statistics would be more compelling.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

11 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Are the verses I stated "taken...

Are the verses I stated "taken out of context"? I know not. It is the untwisting to only harsh truth of "taking up one's cross" that these verses are truth. Most cannot see what was said. Allegorically and in anything of fanciful waves of the hand, the words still stand.

I do not judge by my judgement. I use Jesus' own words to do as he said "each idle word will be called into account". If that is his judgement, then "as you judge so shall you be judged." That is right and true.

But, if the article here is to present religion to a political point of view, then who is out of line - me? Is crossing the line of separation of religion & state worse? Yes. I have shown enough for politics to be free of religion & is truth. Politics is debate.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

10 Replies

  • Jacinda Chan 3 months ago For starters, this article is about...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Job is the oldest book of all the b...

  • Jacinda Chan 3 months ago I don't understand what you sa...

For starters, this article is about a supposed cultural movement. Secondly, where is Job mentioned in Hebrews?

As for Luke, that verse does not mean you should hate. Jesus simply means it takes a lot of sacrifice on the individual's end to live up to His standards. The meaning is in the verses after the one you cited. So yes, you took it out of context.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Job is the oldest book of all the books of the bible. It is the basis of which all the others have built upon. It is the building of a house. If you can't see you can't know. Many passages in Job are poorly translated. In ancient Hebrew, there is no punctuation. If you only can see what you want to see, you never divide the sentences differently "correctly divide the word of truth" is therefore not done. Hebrews NT itself is an abomination directly conflicting with Jesus' words "moving on to maturity" and calling Jesus' words of life "elementary teachings" when Jesus plainly stated "unless you become as a little child you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven".

The self-blind never see. Believe as you wish for that is free will.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I don't understand what you said.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Jacinda, I understand you can't. How does one reshuffle to determine and see unbiased truth when one's background of truth construction has been constructed throughout a lifetime. It is called building your house of truth. Mine is not built on fear in knowledge or wisdom. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is. Therefore the beginning of knowledge or the beginning of wisdom being based upon fear of god is a deception by the greatest deceiver of all. Never makes a mistake. Always perfect. Your best friend and worst nightmare.

Maybe you can find out and let me know what this means and prove that I can't save myself: " Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you" -.Job 40:14

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I can't debate with someone that twists words. Just like I don't associate with religious people who twists the Bible or Koran. There's no way to persuade them.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

In debate, that is a dodge. Believe as you wish. Its your free will. If you have an answer to a in context of "god" talking to man and confessing truth and why - defining my belief in salvation, please, let me know. Its kind of personal like everyone's faith. Narrow is the way and few find it. When all realize they're better than none and as good as any and opportunity is before each of us - then they will know the truth and see mankind as we are.

Cheers!

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

For starters, I don't understand most of what you're saying. So I can't debate you. Second, you haven't proved any of what you said with textual evidence.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Wow - talk about miscommunication. I quoted Job 40:14 and stated it is in context. That is pretty textural with reference. You can read the question. Please consider it as though another's soul is in the balance. Then consider your answer to the question and answer or not. I'm not saying you can answer because you can't "win" against another's free will. It is impossible to prove me wrong. I can't prove I'm right to you because you can't see or understand what I do nor do you have to do so - and that is the point. Let it be. Keep separate religion and state.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I don't understand because you're language is strange. I mean I'm not sure of your point. This article isn't about theology. If you want to debate theology with me, let's do it in private.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Pax in terra vinceat. Res ipsa loquitur.

Sheh-Elohim Yivarech Otach
As-Sal?mu `Alaykum
Paix Être Avec Vous
la paz esté con vosotros

May peace fill your soul.

Cheers!

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

And as an atheist, I would invite all evangelicals to really examine their scripture, their beliefs, and why they believe them.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

48 Replies

  • George Schieck 3 months ago NB: "Atheism" is not anti...

NB: "Atheism" is not anti-God. Rather, "atheism" is anti-theism (and theism is the traditional concept of God).

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

47 Replies

  • Seamus Light 3 months ago It's also the default position...

It's also the default position over whether or not God exists.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

46 Replies

  • George Schieck 3 months ago Negative, Seamus. The question of ...

  • George Schieck 3 months ago Even Xtianity itself is beginning t...

  • Seamus Light 3 months ago You can't be an atheist and be...

Negative, Seamus. The question of God's existence is a completely separate issue, plus that separate issue is itself subject to the consideration of whether the "God" in question is the traditional all-perfect God, or any type/form of God.

Many scientists and others believe full well, now, 21st century, in God, although that God is not the God of traditional religion. They are all Atheists, but they do not deny the existence of God.

Those two are VERY DIFFERENT questions. Wake up.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Even Xtianity itself is beginning to adopt conceptions of God that are not traditional: this new way of looking at God does not see a being that is all powerful, or all anything - rather God has limitations and he (or she) is evolving (just as everything else is), and we all need each other to get from here to there.

Many who helped to found USA were Deists, not Theists (and by definition, the Deists were also Atheists). Many now believe (including Einstein) that God is all that there is - everything that you can see, touch, imagine, build, whatever - all of it is, or is in, God; these folks are also atheists.

There's lots of ways to approach this, Seamus. You surely could use a visit to the library.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You can't be an atheist and believe in deities. THAT is theism.
And to be an atheist but believe in other supernatural/magic nonsense seems ignore the previous rationality of "show me falsifiable evidence of your claim."

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Some do assume that the term "atheist" or "atheism" covers any/every question regarding deity, but that is mistaken. Rather, it only deals with a specific and relatively small aspect of deity.

There are several "isms" & some are religious & some are philosophical. Some have "baggage" (your "supernatural/magic nonsense"), many do not.

The issue of deity is larger, quite a bit larger, than mere atheism.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

George, granted you are a brilliant teacher and a former seminarian but why are you pounding your head against a brick wall? Isn't there a proverb about leading a horticulture...?

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You are correct about the brick wall, but some brick walls are worth pounding (and cracking or breaking), because those walls can and do - intentionally or not - create other similar walls and then before you know it there are (uninformed) walls everywhere when there shouldn't be any walls at all.

So I chisel away at this issue, wherever I find it. I should learn, no doubt, to chisel with cleaner, less blunt, & more surgically accurate strokes.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Dorothy Parker: you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think!

Ah, well, George, if it makes you feel better; pound away. I shall hold your cloak.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

What is your point, George? What are you advocating?

And atheism covers the single most important part of an deity or theological myth: whether or not the claim is actually true.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

See above, Seamus. I'm advocating nothing that hasn't already been endorsed by Spinoza or Einstein.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

So you're advocating a God of the Gaps?
A God of Metaphors?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

God is God, Seamus. Or, if you like, small "g" (god). There are lots of "isms" out there. Choose one. Atheism is only a qualifier for a small part of this arena. My personal preference: whatever is, is god (or is within god). Your observations have not made the slightest dent in deity as espoused by Spinoza, or Einstein, or Whitehead, or Aristotle, or Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin, or a host of others.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

If you wish to divorce yourself utterly from any concept of deity whatsoever, fine. But the term "atheism" doesn't do that.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You talk so much, yet say nothing.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

What I've said has been sufficient to answer your questions. Perhaps it's not been understood, or that you don't like it; if the first, then the library contains the solution, or if the second, then so be it.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I'd say you mostly just threw around the names of various deists and scientists who used God as a metaphor, and mixed that with a defense of some vague spiritualism.

And this all came in response to my comment that evangelical Christians should reconsider their beliefs?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I'd say you don't get it.

You used the term "atheist" as part of, as a qualifier of, your earlier observation, and that term has been getting a lot of air time recently, just about everywhere, and much of that exposure is both inaccurate and misleading. (Which, btw, also proved to be the case here, in your earlier observation). My comment was provided simply to help ensure accuracy - which is now there, if you will see it.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yes, and that definition seemed to imply that the less committed versions of God, or new-age gods were at least somewhat exempt from atheist criticism.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but you keep taking the long route and filling your responses with linguistic fluff. And some things are totally devoid of meaning, like "God is God."

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

There is no "new age" god. Just because humans haven't been aware of something until fairly recently doesn't make it "new age," rather the only thing new here is our evolving awareness of something that has always been there.

This is not linguistic fluff, Seamus. "Atheistic criticism" impacts only theism; it does not impact deity that isn't theism.

"God is god" is a tautology, but it's also accurate. I already told you, many scientists & others regard god as all that there is: look at your desk & what's on it, look outside your window, look in the mirror, and in your town & in your imagination, look everywhere, and then add anything/everything that you don't see or haven't seen, and that is god (or is within god). That is NOT theism.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

deity [noun]
"1
a: the rank or essential nature of a god
b: God, supreme being
2
: a god or goddess
3
: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"

You're misusing the word, "deity."
Either you're suggesting the presence of a god, in which case we're talking about theism, or you're just promoting a vague spirituality which contributes nothing even in its own mythos.

When I look around, I see matter. I can blow up a balloon, and detect things which are real despite being invisible. All these things exist, and can be tested, and be shown to exist in a verifiable manner. They do not require faith.

I have no reason to seek the spirit of my desk.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I'm not taking sides in your debate with George but I would like to point out that you can't prove the non-existence of something by its absence in your observation.

Personally, I do have a hard time empirically and psychologically explaining knowing the end from the beginning over 4000 years ago. Perhaps a sage beyond compare wrote Job (the hated). I'll give this statement from personal experience. To go from one view (seeing or blindness) to expansion of the mind, seeing and hearing more than I can relate is an experience beyond all I've ever known. And in the words of the Dixie Chick's song "Not Ready to Make Nice" - "I kinda like it". Silence solves nothing when so many run their mouth without knowing (its a personal thing not to you)

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You don't need to prove the non-existence of something. It's simply the default position to be skeptical of the person's claim when they don't provide evidence, or when that person jumps to an outlandish conclusion in the absence of knowledge.

Would you give someone's claim that unicorns exist the same weight as another person's skepticism? Wouldn't it make more sense to say, "well, if the one making the claim cannot provide evidence, shouldn't we just assume that the thing DOESN'T exist?" Like, why WOULD you believe it?

And on a side note: unicorns are a lot more believable claim than deities, since they don't carry the weight of all those contradictions. They're just horses with ice cream cones on their heads.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You are infusing traditional theism baggage (e.g. "spirit" & "all powerful") into the other senses of deity, which is inaccurate & unnecessary. Which is why you don't grasp these points. The term "deity" has many applications that do not have anything to do with traditional theism. "Atheism" is only a qualifier for "theism," and does not impact other forms of deity. "Supremely good or powerful" is not required for deity.

Seamus, I am not saying anything new here. This has been around for centuries, and is very familiar to scientists and philosophers and others. But it's not taught in Sunday School, nor is it what is typically/traditionally meant whenever the term "God" appears in the media, or literature.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

"You are infusing traditional theism baggage (e.g. 'spirit' & 'all powerful') into the other senses of deity, which is inaccurate & unnecessary. "
- There are no other senses of "deity." There's other ways to use terms like "spirituality" or "mysticism," but not "deity."

"The term 'deity' has many applications that do not have anything to do with traditional theism."
- Like what?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Seamus, that's what all of these postings have been about - except you are not grasping this. PM is not a classroom, and I've given you the carrot, so to speak. Susan was correct - there's little more I can do. If you truly want to understand this, then you need to go to the library.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

No, you simply need to say something substantive instead of waving your hands.
And having the support of an old hippie doesn't mean you've said anything either.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Seamus, Spinoza and Whitehead are as "substantive" as it gets; Einstein and Cambridge University provided them with their "endorsements" and it doesn't get any better than that. Those two, with continued year by year hard work in seminaries and elsewhere by many others, who are intricately involved with the lives and concerns of parishes and churches and synagogues and scholarly interpretations and parishioners and individuals, are literally changing the face of human understanding and religious belief. Again, this information is out there, Seamus. If you want to understand it, then you need to go find it and read it. Merely complaining about it being unfamiliar will not get you the price of admission.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yes, yes, back to the names.

Spinoza's vague metaphysical nonsense is, like all metaphysics, wordplay.
It's an intellectual hole which is dug infinitely deep.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Seamus - my reply to your reply to me.

I don't have to prove nor do you. Either you discover or you don't. Its not my call and far from me to force this issue. Believe as you will. You have free will and free choice.

I fight "and the scripture says 'you are all gods' and the scripture can't be broken." Not the one who said it. It is the truth it reveals that man attempts to make himself a god over others through trust deceived and deception. I'm racking up my fair share here of rivals on the left as they attempt to be god in others lives against free will and free choice. I stand for liberty. That is against religion but not against the only One who is good. To each his own. I respect your choice as it is yours and not mine.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yeah, I seem to be picking up my fair share of leftist critics as well.
But I actually tend to have more reactionaries and GOP-establishment types after me.
One side wants free money and to dictate the lives of others, and the other wants endless war and to dictate the lives of others.

But, oh well. That's the price of speaking up for reason.

You're a good guy, Ben.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Metaphysics is the name of the game, Seamus, and you opened that door by utilizing the term "atheist". If you want to play in those waters, so to speak, then you should know how to swim.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

George, the definition of atheism you're advancing is controversial yet you present it like it's consensus. Wikipedia defines atheism as "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities...atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." google "define: atheism" and you get "The theory or belief that God does not exist." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." You're jumping down Seamus's throat as if he's advancing something crazy. But his is the consensus definition. Also, it's super-condescending to tell someone to "wake up." No one responds well to that.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

George,

I don't paint labels though in semantics use them as descriptions of a concepts for communication. Atheist is a vary catchall category used by those who have a singularity view. To see multiple sides and points of view, the world becomes a spectrum of views & beliefs. Not black and white around one POV as most want to believe where theirs is the center of all knowledge. Whoever believes thus are self-blinded in their beliefs and hear only what they want to hear. To tear down constructs in the mind to see truth is a shattering experience full of emotional twists. When it takes a lifetime to construct an illusion of truth, seeing truth revealed becomes an instant mental creative destruction as violent as the Big Bang in understanding

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

It's not controversial, Seth. Some think atheism is "inclusive" (referring to any/all deity). Others use it as "exclusive" sense, w/its target being belief &/or trad. God of religion. Only the latter is correct. More specifically, "theism" means "creative source" of humans which "transcends" them (or is external). Yet there is deity that isn't trad. or creative (transcendent/external), but instead includes all that can be seen, touched, imagined (all that there is, without miracles): Spinoza, Einstein. Also deity that does not require belief/faith (Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein). "Atheism" does not cover this - impossible. "Errors of Atheism" by J. Angelo Corlett (2010). Also Whitehead & Process Thought. Or Bertrand Russell.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yes, Ben. So called "conventional wisdom" is not necessarily wise, or even accurate. In this case, many/most (vast majority) of "atheists" are not even aware of the multiple range of deity and/or all that can be implied/meant by that term. Consequently, "atheism" is not a waterfront or catchall term, it simply isn't, and I'm pushing back since every time I turn around there is someone using the term "atheist" inaccurately; those folks are doing everyone a disfavor, especially themselves. It's not unlike Ptolemy/Copernicus.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

George Schieck,

Metaphysics is bull. It's what was left over when science divorced itself from philosophy after being kept on the sidelines for 2000 years.

If you subscribe to the wordplay of the Spinozas, then you're pretty far down the rabbit hole to nowhere.
It leads to nothing because it's based on nothing, and just as Plato's religion of forms gave other equally dark age sophists a base to try and deny existence, your vague spirituality is being used to dupe gullible hippies and college philosophers into taking on beliefs which have nothing to do with reality.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Science is heavily engaged in metaphysics, Seamus. Theoretical physics, cosmology, mathematics, psychiatry/neuroscience, biology/biodiversity & evolutionary theory, and much more - they all have frontiers, or questions without answers, and that's where philosophy happens. Also in the realms of morality and language and etc.. Metaphysics is all around you Seamus, but you don't recognize it. And once again, the only person here using the term "spirituality" is yourself.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

George, I believe I read you were an ex-seminarian. Then, I also expect that you know of the term "fatherless" as it applies through interpretation or understanding to be those who don't believe in a metaphysical sense of having a "father" creator and in the literal sense of orphans. I see "defend the fatherless" though freedom in truth by whatever name they call themselves and look past their descriptions of themselves to their words.

And yes, none are the center of the universe no matter how proud or lofty they think of themselves.

But, I mic'd for truth. Yet, I won't quibble over semantics of themselves or what they call me. I have my own name regardless what they say. But I sure feel like a stranger in a strange land sometimes.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

There are no real "questions without answers." There's only answers we don't know yet.
If you want a sense of what is logical or scientific in the realm of philosophy, you should be looking to figures like Hume. Otherwise you're substituting honest ignorance with faith.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

At this point I am regretting getting involved in this particular thread, but just one more thing. George, you're advancing one definition and calling it "correct" without a logical, empirical, linguistic or philosophical warrant. Then you're elaborating on your (less well accepted! NOT the sense in which the word is generally used!!) definition as if that will explain everything. You picked a semantic battle with Seamus (who it pains me to defend-- who you calling old hippie, bro?) telling him that his definition was wrong. It's not wrong!!! It's widely accepted and used! What you COULD have said is "actually atheism can mean many things, including belief in a non-theistic God" "instead of "you're wrong, open your eyes, go to a library."

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Seth, I'm with you in terms of "regret," etc., but your 2nd sentence is simply inaccurate. There IS logical, empirical & philosophical warrant, also linguistic, underlying my posts in this thread. This is not just me, there are centuries of precedents here, & I continue to point to Spinoza as such a reference (& the primary reference for me).

Try it, perhaps, this way: "nature" & "god" are synonymous. However nature is more than flora & fauna, but literally all that there is, animate & inanimate. Some say pantheism, others panentheism. It's very legitimate, very logical, very non-spiritual. But it's also very full of God. Spinoza was called the god intoxicated philosopher, also an atheist; it's possible, logically, to be both. -CNP

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

(cont)
Also try this analogy: there was a time when Copernicus was barely a 'sliver', and Ptolemy was CW. Yet Copernicus was "correct" regardless of the mass belief otherwise. This is, the above posts, another such example as that. Perhaps habits of the heart evolve more slowly (rather than what might be seen through a telescope). But the term atheism is indeed but a particular sliver of the entire arena represented by the term deity - there's just no getting around it.

Hegel said all philosophy begins with Spinoza. Russell knew that if Leibniz had been logical he would have been a Spinozist. Einstein held Spinoza's view of god. I know Jewish Rabbis who are atheist (a la Spinoza). Contemporary deep ecology & Arne Naess point -CNP

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

(cont)
to Spinoza as their foundational inspiration. Damasio writes about contemporary research in psychiatry and also looking to Spinoza as a foundational reference. There are others, in ethics, political science, and more, where Spinoza is emerging into contemporary recognition.

Perhaps I've not been very diplomatic in these posts, but there's little more that can be said in these tiny boxes; literally, the only other recourse is the library (and these boxes have not been that opaque).

I hope this is helpful.

(P.S.: Even Whitehead and Hartshorne, et.al., can all be said to be atheists).

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Seamus, Hume was a philosopher, so I'm pleased that you find him worthwhile to reference. Plus, I don't think he would (or even could) ultimately object to Spinoza's characterization of "nature" or "god".

Whether or not there are unknowns (in the sense of unknowables) or not, they are - in either case - part of whatever there is. Hence it doesn't matter relative to what I've been explaining in these boxes. Meanwhile, philosophy is very much alive and well. As is, also, "nature" or "god" (see my replies to Seth).

Hume would not say "faith," he would say "habits".

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ben, that's an interesting dimension - namely of being "fatherless" (or not). Even in the Spinozistic arena I've been referencing, I think it's possible to find "fatherhood" (or rather "parenthood"). It is, in this case, nature (or god / pls see my replies to Seth). Or, to put it another way, we are all literally stardust; as to the origins of the stars, I must rely on Stephen Hawking and his colleagues to tell me that. (Meanwhile, and always, all of it is nature or god).

"Stranger in a strange land"? Yes, been there done that (& I didn't mean that to be flippant).

I found the book by Neal Grossman ("Healing the Mind") to be very helpful in understanding Spinoza. Grossman was trained at MIT.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

George,

My best friend was entirely in your camp. He now has faith more than enough to put the "mountain" in the sea of men's words. This is not the forum to show things unbelievable unless shown of seeing the end from the beginning or proving anything beyond a shadow of doubt. Though, coming up with an empirical or philosophical explanation has alluded all.

I will say that I see where you are coming from. Hopefully, without appearing trite or appeasing, I do believe you have every right to your view and faith. Perhaps, that is still me being consistent in "defending the fatherless" but in freedom of choice and belief there is truth. It has been said that the truth will make one free. It has me. So, how could I ever impinge upon you.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Spinoza in the NYT (Sunday, 5 Feb):

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/spinozas-vision-of-freedom-and-ours/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Nice piece. If you haven't already, you should check out some of Michael Spencer's work. He's a strong believer and theologian (I believe he's Baptist) who wrote a book called "The coming evangelical collapse" where he predicts a impending collapse of the church followed by a revival.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

best points:
1. The movement's focus on political issues distracted it from teaching scripture. Modern evangelicals are less knowledgeable about the contents of the bible than previous generations.
2. Failure to connect with young people effectively.
3. Bad business model. Look for many mega-churches to fold in the coming years.
4. "Protestant work ethic" replaced the "good Samaritan".

  • Mic this! 4
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Mic'd for truth of stating man...

Mic'd for truth of stating man's wisdom.
Though what you can't see is the real reason. And Spenser is barred from profiting from it if he sees. He didn't or didn't reveal it. I have already and make nothing from it in speaking truth.

The thing about perfect is there can be no flaw no matter how small. Otherwise, it may be good or not but its not perfect. It doesn't matter about judging on the small things as long as you use their judgement concerning their words to judge them for as they judge so shall they be judged. But, things are not as they appear even in loss of mega churches. There are many quietly in their homes who still have great faith but no faith in man's words of hypocrisy. They are on the way to seeing if not already there

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Interesting article. If you say evangelicals are all about God's love, can you please explain why Calvinist evangelicals advocate that humans are nothing in order to glorify God? Why do Christians dislike unique people if the very foundation of God's love is unconditional and accepting? Shouldn't Christians understand how God loves in order to desire it?

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yes, good article. There's too much disinformation out there about Christianity. Having said that, I'm not crazy about labeling myself an evangelical. Since so many people have distorted the term over time, it has effectively lost its meaning. And we're not helping our cause in that regard.

Also, it looks like Mr. Robertson has lemon juice in his eyes in your picture. Come to think of it, I wish CBN would hire somebody to squirt citrus in the man's face when he says that Jesus causes floods because of legalized abortion.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Nice article, Petey. Thank you. As a PK & former seminary student, I'm familiar with what you speak of.

For me, the experience is always, or primarily, metaphorical - although no less meaningful than that of those who choose literalist approaches to scripture. That threshold, however, between the two approaches can be quite significant; I remember being unable to reconcile them, many years ago, & being very confused by (& uncomfortable with) the newly emerging Campus Crusade for Christ, etc..

I regret - very much - the dissipation of belief, & consequent lack of civility, in our culture. But I also submit that what has disturbed many has been the literalist foray into politics; it doesn't belong there, at least not as a litmus test.

  • Mic this! 5
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

People forget that even Hitler used the bible for his own ends. Evangelicals have held this country back in a number of ways in my opinion. Religion and Governance do not mix. Frankly it frightens me to think some people would govern according to their religion. You cannot legislate morality but you can legislate morally.

  • Mic this! 4
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

9 Replies

  • George Schieck 3 months ago They do mix, very nicely and very s...

They do mix, very nicely and very supportively - even perhaps necessarily - as long as one is not a litmus test for the other. USA did quite nicely, thank you, in this regard for centuries, until the 1970's arrived along with the literalists' capture of party politics (on one side promoting, on the other reacting).

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

8 Replies

  • Lawrence Sampson 3 months ago It did quite nicely with white Chri...

It did quite nicely with white Christian males in charge, preventing blacks, women, Chinese, Irish, and others from voting. Now we fight the same battle over gay marriage and gays in the military. You may think that is quite nice but most don't You cannot legislate morality. You may long for the good ole days but they are gone forever I assure you.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

7 Replies

  • Paul Anderson 3 months ago The Civil Rights movement was a rel...

  • George Schieck 3 months ago I believe that is culture, Lawrence...

  • Lawrence Sampson 3 months ago A human being, a person living natu...

The Civil Rights movement was a religious movement. Today's anti-war and human rights movements have roots in left-wing Catholicism.

Religion's not bad. It's what you do with it.



  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I believe that is culture, Lawrence, although the question of where the threshold is between the two (culture & religion) is an interesting digression. My preference regarding religion is a metaphorical approach, and your assumption that I "long for the good ole days" is very much inaccurate. Nor did I ever say anything about legislating morality.

The point is that civility in society has foundations, but those foundations are not in politics. Nor are they in economics, or education. So where are they? I submit that they are in religion. Now religion can either be with, or without, baggage. You are assuming that I like/want baggage, but you are incorrect.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

A human being, a person living naturally, knows right or wrong inherently. It does not take religion to teach that. In fact often times religion has taught the opposite. If good is found in religion then there are no good non religious people, according to you. Or to put it another way, a person without religion is a bad person. I don't think so. I'm all for spirituality and that is a very personal thing. But organized religion is one of the worst inventions of mankind.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Essentially incorrect, Lawrence. Religion provides the shared context: history, culture, common purpose, etc.. None of that comes, foundationally, from anywhere else.

Civility (manners, decency, tolerance, respect, etc.) are societal functions with their foundations in religion. Society itself doesn't give us those attributes, rather it gives us infrastructure, legal codes, employment, etc., and much of that can be "me first" and/or "dog eat dog".

Knowing right or wrong, naturally, inherently - disagree. What we have inherent, naturally, is a drive to survive, to persist (and some disagree & say the opposite). The enlightened, wise version of surviving is cooperation, but not all are rational or wise, & cooperation need not be civil.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I would say we fundamentally disagree about human nature, and this difference of opinion may be born of different cultural worldviews.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Perhaps, but I doubt it. My references come from philosophers and others, who in turn inform, and are informed by, what we've been discussing. Including culture itself. I'm 99.9% positive that what I've been saying is accurate, with a centuries old pedigree.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

How many of your philosphers were Indians? Further, how many were from a tribal background? The assumpion of knowledge of all things is amazing arrogance. I'm hardly the first Indian thats been told "no you don't understand". Its almost funny. Almost.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Religion is a very personal matter. It is between that person and their god. It is up to each person to seek out truth in all matters. Religion has no place in government. Government has no place in dictating to religion any aspect of their lives if it is against their view as long as their view doesn't harm others. It is wrong for the government to force someone to take medication if that is against their beliefs (of course they may die but that is their choice). It is wrong for the government to force LGBT on others just as DOMA is forcing marriage which is and has always been a religious institution on others. All one has to do is look at Saudi Arabia and how police enforce servitude to religious law to see the folly of religion & state

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

5 Replies

  • Michael Weiss 3 months ago I agree with you until LGBT civil r...

I agree with you until LGBT civil rights; I don't understand how govt is forcing their rights on religion. Any religion is free to choose it's leaders, who gets their money, discriminate against women, prevent their "flock" from exercising their own civil rights and who receives the spiritual gifts. SCOTUS has even ruled that a church can protest at a Vet's funeral and scream things about them going to hell because they died defending the country that "eve has LGBTs in the country." INL, but doesn't DOMA prevent recognition of LGBT marriage? LGBTs may want to get married in their church but that is clearly up to the church. Marriage is a civil proc. w/ legal rights and privileges that the state allows churches to officiate and register.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago If a charity is ran by a religion s...

If a charity is ran by a religion such as a child adoption agency and the state refuses to license them or allow them to perform adoptions because they discriminate based upon their beliefs about LGBT, then that is wrong. I'll fight for their right to their beliefs even if I don't hold them as they do and I'll fight for charity for that is just the right thing to do. To many children are in orphanages who need homes. States discriminate on the basis of funding (DC,Washington's denial of Catholic adoption agency funding because of LGBT)

But, this will change for SCOTUS for the first time limited gov in religion: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/11/supreme-court-religious-workers-cant-sue-for-job-discrimination
That is good.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Michael Weiss 3 months ago Ben, the link you provided is inter...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Discrimination can take many forms ...

  • Michael Weiss 3 months ago Ben: I appreciate the ability of re...

Ben, the link you provided is interesting, but it is "Supreme Court: Religious Workers Can't Sue for Job Discrimination" and has nothing to do with the right of government to demand that its contractors not discriminate with government money. As far as religious discrimination against LGBT, you can defend it all you want but god doesn't discriminate--read Acts 10. With regard to states discriminating against RCC, it's completely false. It was the RCC Bishop who decided not to accept the contract that prevented LGBT discrimination--the contract was going to be renewed. Moreover, the children served were never in jeopardy--the contract was given to another agency and even hired many of the RCC case workers. RCC can discriminate; Govt can't.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Discrimination can take many forms LGBT is not protected under federal law but are in several states. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sexual-orientation-discrimination-rights-29541.html

The supreme court nullified those statutes in regard to hiring for religious institutions. It is a very small step to do the same towards discrimination of funding because of LGBT in those states as well. It will be up to the states. I believe people are people. They're good and bad. A parent's love is not based upon their liberal or conservative status.

(oh, I don't think the "only one who is good" discriminates - but that doesn't mean men/women don't hate and discriminate- Paul of Tarsus, Moses, and Mohammed sure did)

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ben: I appreciate the ability of religions to select their leaders and agree with SCOTUS' deference to churches in that regard, but you're expanding the scope of the decision. Non-religious positions at religious organizations are still protected by federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws. RCC can discriminate against LGBT priests and nuns but can't discriminate against history professors at Georgetown University. Moreover, the US Government can't contract and fund to support the religious activity of the RCC but can contract with it as an FBO to help children in foster and adoption services. And in those services the federal and state government can demand that RCC comply with anti-LGBT policies RE adoption and foster care.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Petey,
This is the first article I,ve seen that attempts to explain the evangelical philosophy. I appreciate your doing it. My first concern is that evangelicals appear to not respect the beliefs of others who do not see Christ as they do nor the "Judeo" part of Judeo-Christian framework of our country; there is no true belief in freedom of religion. My second concern is that evangelicals are trying to insert their beliefs into laws, essentially instituting a state religion - forbidden by the constitution. I know this isn't universal among the followers; I once attended a prayer breakfast where the Baptist minister did not mention Jesus once-recognized his multi-denominational audience. I welcome your response as dialog helps understanding.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

5 Replies

  • Kenneth W 3 months ago Douglas, 1. If you believed you di...

Douglas,
1. If you believed you discovered the cure for multiple sclerosis through research, testing and personal experience, and published a book on it, people could reasonably say, "maybe he's right," or "maybe he's wrong," but not, "how narrow minded." Christians believe they have found

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Kenneth W 3 months ago the cure for the human condition; t...

the cure for the human condition; that they have found ultimate reality and ultimate truth. Even though some Christians may not come off this way, the heart of evangelism is spreading the good news.
2. To ask someone not to bring their worldview to the table is like asking you not to bring yours;

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • Kenneth W 3 months ago it is asking someone to drop what i...

  • Kenneth W 3 months ago separation of Church and the federa...

  • Douglas Goodman 3 months ago Kenneth, Thanks you for your comme...

it is asking someone to drop what is dearest to their hearts. It is not only unreasonable, but impossible. There is no such thing as a neutral position in these matters. Everyone has biases.
3. Minor point but there is no separation of C&S line in the constitution; only a line that prohibits

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

separation of Church and the federal gov't.
Hopefully that was helpful in understanding the other side. I welcome further dialogue as well as your view on these points!

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Kenneth,
Thanks you for your comments. Reference your #2 comment. I am not asking someone not to bring their worldwide view of any other view to the discussion. I am just saying don't force your belief on me if I shouldn't agree. As you say,"spreading the news" is all part of the discussion and dialog is what's important. Separation of church and state is the interpretive wording for "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "

Although I'm not a Christian, I'm not arguing that "judging" someone is wrong. Just asking for honest introspection.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

6 Replies

  • Petey Crowder 3 months ago Hey Joel, thanks for reading & ...

Hey Joel, thanks for reading & for the question. So my closing comments reflect that I don't believe Evangelicals, or Christians, or those who purport to follow Jesus, should be acting as judges, though that's what we unfortunately have become known for. Scripture abdicates God as judge and occasionally uses judgment language, but it's never within the context of encouraging the Church to act as judges. Perhaps that's hard to reconcile for some, and understandably so, but the point I was trying to make is that Evangelicals are primarily defined as Christ-followers and Christ never appointed humans as judges.

  • Mic this! 4
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

5 Replies

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Petey, "Christ never appointed...

Petey, "Christ never appointed humans as judges" is incorrect. "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges." Matt 12:27.

Interesting he used the word Beelzebub. Its the name of the god of Akron in II Kings. Its against mosaic law to speak the name of another god in Ex 23:13. Its the last of the law that moses had been speaking all day and least noticed. Then again, maybe the last shall be first and the least the greatest after all. Beelzebub is the only name of a "god" that Jesus ever spoke.

"If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!" - True indeed.

Something to think upon.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Petey Crowder 3 months ago Ben, I appreciate your comment. But...

  • Ben Poole 3 months ago Petey, Religion is a very personal ...

  • Nate Abrams 3 months ago Ben, Cherry picking the Bible to pr...

Ben, I appreciate your comment. But honestly, I don't know if I can validate that passage as a general rule that Christ-followers are judges of other humans. He's in a theoretical conversation about an accusation that had been leveled against him, not defining the roles of his followers and the Church for generations to come...

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Petey, Religion is a very personal matter and non of my business that which is yours. I was just pointing out he did say "they will be your judges". Whether theoretical or actually true depending upon life after death - he did appoint them as judges over the Pharisees here. "What is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on hearth is loosed in heaven". Those are the keys. As to actual judges on this earth, he specifically stated "who made me judge"? I haven't but that is for me and me alone to decide. The same is true of others and for yourself.

It is the understanding that freedom of choice and free will is what makes this country great and defines us as America. I respect all religions that respect others: believers or not

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ben, Cherry picking the Bible to prove a point is always dangerous, no matter what side of the argument you fall on. Am I to take Philemon as a validation of slavery? Or is there a deeper meaning? As you have pointed out there are passages indicating that Jews/Christians should judge others, but there are other passages that portray followers of Christ as servants to humanity. Jesus himself serves the role of servant at the Last Supper, washing the feet of the disciples, indicating that this is the proper role of a follower of God. Scripture must be taken as a whole, not as isolated parts.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Oh, I don't judge them for it is up to each person to judge and decide for themselves. It is free will. If any wishes to enslave themselves to a master then they deserve their wages. If they must judge, then they should make a correct judgement. No one appointed me to be their judge. The only thing Jesus did was appoint judges from religion over the religious judges of the day - the Pharisees. As to Philemon - a Pharisee of Pharisees wrote that from my understanding Paul. He has a judge already appointed unto him.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

The fact remains that evangelicals must explain the teaching within their Bible regarding ETERNAL judgment of people who are different in matters of religious faith. Consider the writings of the Apostle John which suggest those who are "different" -- don't believe Jesus -- are eternally lost.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

3 Replies

  • George Schieck 3 months ago Joel, I don't - and won't...

Joel, I don't - and won't - dispute your particular observation. But I would also point out that any/every faith group is similar, insofar as they all have "fences" around them serving to distinguish "us" from "them". Sometimes that distinction can generate the sort of discrepancies you indicate, although the distinction can also simply indicate a uniqueness without such discrepancies. Lastly I would also observe that Xtianity has more in common with its predecessor than I think many realize (in either direction); after all (for example), Jesus did not read the New Testament, nor did he ever ask that it be written.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

2 Replies

  • Michael Weiss 3 months ago The world's religions have mor...

The world's religions have more in common with their core values than separates them with their "fences." But their differences and the tactics to "reduce" the competition are frightening. I don't know who said it, but I discovered it with dismay when I was stationed in Pensacola, FL--the most segregated day of the week is Sunday. African Americans go to their churches, whites go to their churches and Hispanics go to their churches, etc. Christians do have allot in common with Judaism & Jesus was a devout Jew. They also have allot in common with Islam, including Jesus and the same Father God. Christian traditions, especially RCC, have allot in common with Paganism.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • George Schieck 3 months ago Well said, Michael....

Well said, Michael.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Thank you for your insightful article. Evangelicals, in our fast media culture have gotten a decidely bad rap and shallow treatment for their beliefs. I do have to agree with Sal below though, that the political stances taken by many evangelicals seem to be at odds with the teachings of Christ. Our King sat with sinners and preached the good news to them, rather than publicly condeming them and advocating for violence and war as many modern evangelicals are potrayed as doing. Although I don't identify as evangelical, I am Christian, and the public opinions of many of these groups appall me.

  • Mic this! 5
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Mr. Crowder- Thank you for providing some insight into the true meaning of Evangelicalism. I found it very interesting.

Fighting evil, turning the other cheek and living a life that mirrors our Creator are all good things. Most important is the fact that all Americans are free to worship any way they choose.

Sometimes evangelicals run into some trouble when they proselytize, an important part of evangelical doctrine (you indicated this is the case in your essay). Occasionally, this means telling another person that their religion is inferior to evangelicalism. This can offend some people.

A second area of concern is that it appears that evangelicals often mix religion and government, which goes against our nation's tradition to separate church and state. This can come in many forms. For instance, one may say that our federal government is not following the teachings of Christ regarding one issue or another. That may be true, but not every American is a follower of Christ. And then there are the issues of abortion and gay rights. Evangelicals use their teachings to justify their positions regarding these very controversial debates. This often creates hard feelings because, once again, not every American is a proponent of evangelical teachings.

I think the Evangelical movement in the America would be served by encouraging its members to be more tolerant of others regarding controversial social issues. The ideal is that all religions in this country respect each other and work towards the common good, which is the cornerstone of our nation.

  • Mic this! 11
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
Join PolicyMic

What is PolicyMic?