Considering that 40% of people who attend religious services regularly voted for Biden, that seems unlikely. Joe Biden himself is Roman Catholic (and seems to be fairly religious), and I assume that he doesn’t support Trump, for example.
Basically all major Christian denominations believe in the Rapture, certainly including Catholics.
So… you think Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are a danger to society?
I mean, I guess I’m conflating what you & AA wrote, but my point is simply… criticize the point where religion crosses over into politics. Not the religion itself.
:whynotboth?:
Well, don’t use politics that a heckuva lot of believers don’t subscribe to as a reason to denigrate the faith. Belief in rapture is not particularly indicative of one’s belief in whether abortion should be legal or not, for example.
But lots if people in those religions are not biblical literalists. This statement by an author that rights books about the Rapture, describes how believers in the Rapture feel about those that don’t.
Moderate Christians will never come up with a story that can compare, he said.
“They are just liberal, socialists, really, and they don’t believe the Bible,” LaHaye said. “What they probably will come up with is a plausible explanation from their liberal standpoint to satisfy their adherents that are reading our series and liked it. But it will be inferior because the story will be inferior.”
If belief is not related to ones political orientation why are non believers referred to as liberal socialists?
Here are some figures about belief:
I mean, I don’t have the context for your quote so it’s hard to guess exactly what he means. If he’s describing people who don’t believe in a Left Behind style rapture as “liberal socialists” then that’s a pretty idiotic thing to say. I’m not exactly sure if that’s what he’s saying, mind you.
I mean, for a Christian to say they don’t believe in some sort of rapture is… I question whether they’re really a Christian.
Oh, you added a link. I have a meeting so I’ll read it after.
You’d need to define Rapture in a way that is very different than the version popularized in the “Left Behind” novels etc, for this to be true according to Catholic teaching. Are there wingnut Catholic individuals with heterodox beliefs? Absolutely.
I grew up in a Catholic family with an extremely large extended family. Many of them attend church regularly. I’d wager 90% of them dont even know what the Rapture is. They may or may not have heard the term before.
My personal experience is obviously very limited but it does make we question whether regularly attending service should be equated with believing in the rapture.
I don’t think I even heard the term or knew what it was until i was an adult and had left the church.
No, just pointing out that being Christian doesn’t define one’s political beliefs and we shouldn’t conflate the religion and the politics. That’s a bad road to be on.
No, because it wasn’t an explanation to the question I asked.
Oh, that’s not about LaHaye AFAICT. Look, I’m not justifying what crazy religious things people do and don’t believe… that’s kind of a fool’s errand IMO.
And I’m not saying that every Christian believes that rapture will happen more or less as the Left Behind books lay out. Yes, the Catholic view of Rapture is somewhat different from the LaHaye/Jenkins view.
I’m just saying don’t conflate religion and political opinions is all. Don’t lump every Christian in the same boat. Heck, 15% of white evangelical Christians voted for Biden, to say nothing of the 91% of black Protestants who did (Catholics and white Protestants were more evenly divided). Treating Christians as a monolithic block is both incorrect and yes, the language Whiskey uses is frequently offensive, which is, I presume, why he uses it even though it detracts from whatever point he’s trying to make.
As I said, criticize the politics all you want. The SCOTUS decision on abortion, the lies about litter boxes in school bathrooms, refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages… by all means. There’s plenty to criticize and my list is hardly comprehensive. A lot of Christians would agree with you that those are bad things… if the point could be made without denigrating their faith in the process anyway.
No one did this! “Treating Christians as a monolithic block” what the funking hell are you talking about! Get out of your own head!
If you find Whiskey’s language frequently offensive, then point it out. If it is in this conversation, then quote it. (Sidenote: I am working my ass off not to be offensive here cause damn, WTF.)
I did… that’s what started us down this path. Believing that the earth was created 6,000 years ago does NOT translate to wanting to hurt people.
and we explained that. Seriously, WTF.
No, it was not explained how a young earth creationist who has no problem with the teaching science in schools is hurting people.
Or why it’s ok to call such a person stupid, as Whiskey did.
Ignorant is more accurate than stupid. Or denialist I suppose. But spreading nonsense like young Earth is dangerous and bad on its own.
So much for freedom of religion, I guess.
What he does in his place of worship and with other members of his faith are up to him. When he starts spreading falsehoods to the general public as though they are fact is when it becomes dangerous.
I would consider it “ignorant” if a person had not heard of the prevailing science.
I would consider it “stupid” if a person had heard of the prevailing science and didn’t believe or understand it or thought it was the devil’s work.