• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another reason Clinton lost....

The Don said:
I never claimed that she didn't :confused:
Click to expand...


It's illuminating that a candidate portrayed as being "crooked" refused to compromise her positions and beliefs whereas her opponent - who was projecting an image of being a straight talker - was willing to pretend to be religious
Click to expand...
I guess I misinterpreted this.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Says the person who puts all Evangelicals in one basket.

I think you don't really know a lot Evangelicals.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I've had the misfortune to know many, from a variety of denominations and lots of different countries.

The mere fact they are obliged to evangelise indicates the lack of tolerance they have for other beliefs.
 
The Don said:
Methodism is a long way from Evangelicism IMO
Click to expand...

You may be unaware of the US variety of the Methodist sect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Methodism_in_the_United_States#Modern_history
The United Methodist Church was formed in 1968 as a result of a merger between the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB) and The Methodist Church (USA).
Click to expand...

Like most Christian sects there is a huge variation in beliefs and practices among churches and then among members of those churches. IME evangelism is more prominent in the mid-western and southern branches which are where Hillary has been involved with the United Methodist Church. IIRC, that was also the church sect of Pres. George W and Laura Bush, and their branch being in Texas was more evangelical than most.

I'm surprised Hillary did not respond to the requests for inteviews and can see how that may have cost her quite a few votes.
 
Just how many democratic governments in the world have those running for political office finding it a requirement to pander to a religious sect?

In Canada this rarely ever comes up, even in largely Catholic Quebec
 
Methodist isn't evangelical?

The Methodist Church as part of the worldwide church shares those core beliefs which it believes to have been passed down from the time of the Apostles. Those beliefs are founded on the Bible and are summed up in the creeds, which are regularly used in Christian services of all denominations.

It is widely considered that the Protestant Reformation focused on three main matters of belief: the supreme authority of scripture; salvation by faith through faith in Christ, and; the priesthood of all believers. The Methodist Church affirms the importance of these matters.

John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) believed that certain aspects of the Christian Faith required special emphasis. Methodists today still hold to these emphases, known to them as, the 'Four Alls':

All need to be saved - "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) - Sin is a deep-seated self-seeking from which no-one is immune.
All can be saved - We can be saved from the consequences of our sin through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. This is a Gospel ('good news') for everyone - "God sent the Son into the world... that the world might be saved through him" (John 3:17)
All may know themselves saved - through the promises in scripture, the intense conviction of God's graciousness to us individually, and a different outlook on life leading to a changed quality of living - "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
All may be completely saved - there can be no limits on what God can do in our lives, as we are continually becoming more and more perfect in love for God and also our fellow humans [7]
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
Just how many democratic governments in the world have those running for political office finding it a requirement to pander to a religious sect?

In Canada this rarely ever comes up, even in largely Catholic Quebec
Click to expand...

Religious publications reaching out to her campaign with questions were frequently met with silence. Some evangelical insiders are now asking: Why didn’t Hillary Clinton even try to get us to vote for her?
Click to expand...
First I don't know if it was really true she did not respond to inquiries from religious publications.

Do you consider responding to and giving interviews to various groups to be pandering?
 
Foolish move, I'd say. If you've got a message, you share it with anyone willing to listen.

She might have been advised that the purpose of the inquiries was not honest, i.e., it was an attempt to get more "gotcha" material on to use against her with evangelicals. That's kind of silly though, as evangelicals had plenty of material to use against her already.

I suppose this is just one more kick in the pants for the Democrats illustrating that Sanders would've been a much stronger candidate against Trump.
 
The Shrike said:
I suppose this is just one more kick in the pants for the Democrats illustrating that Sanders would've been a much stronger candidate against Trump.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think that his age, his history of disloyalty against party, his socialism, his Jewishness would all have been used against him. One of the reasons why so many on the right were cheering on Bernie that that they thought he would be a much easier candidate to beat than Hillary.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear.

Irony meter explodes.
Click to expand...

Why, because I classify a group as bigots because of their actions ?

IMO they're free to believe whatever they like - however misguided I think it is - but when they see it as their duty to convert others, that's when they cross the line into bigotry.
 
Just another example of a lousy candidate running a lousy campaign, although the intolerance in this thread towards those holding evangelical opinions is a real eye opener.
 
The Big Dog said:
Just another example of a lousy candidate running a lousy campaign, although the intolerance in this thread towards those holding evangelical opinions is a real eye opener.
Click to expand...

Eye opening?

You really didn't realize until just now that there are a lot of atheists on here, and they look on evangelicals as scum because that's what they are?

You new here?
 
The_Don, I think you might have a strange and warped idea about what an Evangelical is. It's just a doctrinal position that salvation comes through grace alone, and not from the works of the individual. Most Protestant faiths adhere to this.

It has nothing to do with gay marriage, consumption of shell fish, tattoos, pre-marital sex or the idea that all black people bear the corruption of Cain. These issues frequently overlap, but that's a different doctrinal position.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The_Don, I think you might have a strange and warped idea about what an Evangelical is. It's just a doctrinal position that salvation comes through grace alone, and not from the works of the individual. Most Protestant faiths adhere to this.
Click to expand...

They also have an obligation to evangelise (hence the name) - it's that I object to in any religious group and leads me to call them (and other evangelical religions) bigots.
 
Looking at the way Hillary ran her campaign from the outside (I am a Libertarian and find both The Donald and Hillary unpalatable) it did seem like she did not make any effort to win over voters that may have been right leaning, but had issues with Trump. Many evangelicals disliked Trump, but saw him as the lesser of two evils. I think there was a time where Hilary could have won over my mother (and other evangelicals who had a problem with Trump on moral grounds) but the way that Hilary’s campaign tried to attack Trump did not resonate with them. Hillary’s campaign frequently attacked The Donald on moral grounds, but she always used the language of the left to do it. If she had found a way to attack The Donald’s morals, but sounded like an evangelical instead of a SJW I think she could have “de-energized” many evangelicals and lessened their turn out, and maybe pick up a few votes, especially among the religious female voters who had every reason to dislike The Donald on moral grounds.

My father (and all of the other male relatives in my family) would have never voted for Hillary over 2nd amendment issues. The Donald could have held a press conference dressed in drag with Dee Snider promising to pass a law to force every American male to wear only skirts if elected and my father and uncles would have all went out on election day with kilts on to vote for The Donald over 2nd amendment issues, but many religious women that I know did not like The Donald, but voted for him anyways as the lesser of two evils because Hilary just did not resonate with them.

In hind-sight I think that Hilary did make a mistake by not courting the evangelical right even slightly, especially the women. She did not have to compromise on her own values, but she could have tried to find the language to attack The Donald’s morality in a way that would have connected with the women, and maybe present herself in a way that was less polarizing and more acceptable. I don’t think that she would have ever won overwhelming support among the evangelical right, but she might have been less polarizing in a way that would have de-energized their vote.

But this is all hind-sight.
 
Newtons Bit said:
It has nothing to do with gay marriage, consumption of shell fish, tattoos, pre-marital sex or the idea that all black people bear the corruption of Cain. .
Click to expand...

Yes it does:
http://www.evangelicalbeliefs.com/
We believe that the Bible is the Word of God; without error as originally written. Its content has been preserved by Him, and is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith-above all human authority.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom