Christian nationalism is driving away christians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think general public perception of Christians has changed significantly last 4 years.

Christians = far right republicans = crazy DT supporters = hate filled whites

I would just add the word "evangelical" i.e.,

Evangelical Christians = far right republicans = crazy DT supporters = hate filled whites

Not all Christians are like that, but because the evangelicals make the most noise, they are giving all Christians a bad name.

We are very evangelical but not far right and are very much anti DT. So while you are right that it’s a subgroup of Christians, it’s also a subgroup of evangelicals.

I think you’re in the minority of evangelicals.

All the people I grew up around weren’t necessarily all in for trump, but they didn’t speak out against and are very anti-democrat/liberal. They use terms like “anti-God” which I find very concerning. There’s not much daylight between right wing politics and “Gods Word” in their eyes.

We are neck deep in the evangelical world and I know one Christian white National. And the rest of his family is not at all like that.

It kind of reminds me of my mom who wonders why “all blacks/gays/etc do XYZ.” They obviously don’t, but one’s exposure to a group is what you know of them. So if all you know of evangelical Christians is the ones you see yelling in the street corner or on TV, that’s what you know of them. I don’t know any of them, so my perception is that the vast majority of Christians are not white nationalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Crusades?

You've obviously never read Fred Donner's Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, c 1982 if memory serves.

IN mid-7th Century, the Prophet, having relocated to Medina caught that Acela to Paradise in 632. For the balance of the 7th century, the Rashidun
Caliphs went a jihading in every direction.

Conquered the Near East and North Africa, which had been Christian for centuries previously. The First Crusade was in 1092... some 450 years of Islamic conquest and occupation AFTER the early Islamic conquests. If your academic experience of the Crusades was filtered through multi-cultural political correctness you've never heard this.

The Crusades were a penitential quest for European nobles many of whom were quite wealthy already, had all the land they needed, and frankly couldn't afford vassal states hundreds of miles from home even if that had been their intention. Which is was not. It went off the rails in some places, some atrocities were committed. Which was NOT the point of the endeavor.

The First Crusade was a brief, local success in places before it became a disaster. The other crusades were total disasters for Christendom. Various local Muslim rulers easily handed them their heads. figuratively speaking and sometimes literally.

Crusades, Crusades...European people Bad ... wah wah wah. Yeah, you can believe that. If you ignore all the contrary history you've never heard.

So all religious extremists are shitty. Got it.

Dotted across this country are major hospitals and not a few universities begun by Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, LDS, and Jews. We're waiting with bated breath (minnow) for the charitable institutions begun by angry nihilistic atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Crusades?

You've obviously never read Fred Donner's Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, c 1982 if memory serves.

IN mid-7th Century, the Prophet, having relocated to Medina caught that Acela to Paradise in 632. For the balance of the 7th century, the Rashidun
Caliphs went a jihading in every direction.

Conquered the Near East and North Africa, which had been Christian for centuries previously. The First Crusade was in 1092... some 450 years of Islamic conquest and occupation AFTER the early Islamic conquests. If your academic experience of the Crusades was filtered through multi-cultural political correctness you've never heard this.

The Crusades were a penitential quest for European nobles many of whom were quite wealthy already, had all the land they needed, and frankly couldn't afford vassal states hundreds of miles from home even if that had been their intention. Which is was not. It went off the rails in some places, some atrocities were committed. Which was NOT the point of the endeavor.

The First Crusade was a brief, local success in places before it became a disaster. The other crusades were total disasters for Christendom. Various local Muslim rulers easily handed them their heads. figuratively speaking and sometimes literally.

Crusades, Crusades...European people Bad ... wah wah wah. Yeah, you can believe that. If you ignore all the contrary history you've never heard.

So all religious extremists are shitty. Got it.

Dotted across this country are major hospitals and not a few universities begun by Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, LDS, and Jews. We're waiting with bated breath (minnow) for the charitable institutions begun by angry nihilistic atheists.

Any excuse to prey on the vulnerable and ignorant, eh? Modern religious extremists are quite opportunistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Crusades?

You've obviously never read Fred Donner's Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, c 1982 if memory serves.

IN mid-7th Century, the Prophet, having relocated to Medina caught that Acela to Paradise in 632. For the balance of the 7th century, the Rashidun
Caliphs went a jihading in every direction.

Conquered the Near East and North Africa, which had been Christian for centuries previously. The First Crusade was in 1092... some 450 years of Islamic conquest and occupation AFTER the early Islamic conquests. If your academic experience of the Crusades was filtered through multi-cultural political correctness you've never heard this.

The Crusades were a penitential quest for European nobles many of whom were quite wealthy already, had all the land they needed, and frankly couldn't afford vassal states hundreds of miles from home even if that had been their intention. Which is was not. It went off the rails in some places, some atrocities were committed. Which was NOT the point of the endeavor.

The First Crusade was a brief, local success in places before it became a disaster. The other crusades were total disasters for Christendom. Various local Muslim rulers easily handed them their heads. figuratively speaking and sometimes literally.

Crusades, Crusades...European people Bad ... wah wah wah. Yeah, you can believe that. If you ignore all the contrary history you've never heard.

So all religious extremists are shitty. Got it.

Dotted across this country are major hospitals and not a few universities begun by Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, LDS, and Jews. We're waiting with bated breath (minnow) for the charitable institutions begun by angry nihilistic atheists.

DOn't forget the hospitals founded by secular groups (cities, universities, private irganizations) and staffed by health care professionals who don't have to be a member of a religious group to practice there.

Also keep in mind that anyone can be angry and nihilistic, irrespective of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents, who are lifelong Republicans and genuinely try to be Christlike people, are increasingly aghast by what some of their friends believe. It’s really wild. So much of what is being espoused by evangelicals right now does not even begin to pass the “what would Jesus do?” test.

Former Catholic here.

This is how I feel watching Catholic family and friends. Their views and statements on a variety of issues are so out of line with what I was taught (K-12 Catholic school, Catholic immigrant families, took part in all sacraments . . . I was raised in a hard core Catholic environment). I find it repulsive and confusing. And I cannot talk about it with them. Though THEY (not I) have raised issues with me, those attempts have gone badly. If you even delicately point out why their position seems at odds with WWJD, they lash out (also un-Jesus-like).

Unfortunately, it has colored my views of them. It's hard to see people preaching Bible verses, Lenten sacrifices, and other on-the-surface Catholicism do a 180 when out of the church parking lot: name-calling and hostility, promoting policies that do not help the poor or needy, the victim complex, the willingness to deny other people rights b/c of the their "rights", among other things.

Has it colored your views of Catholicism? After all, it, like other religions, expects followers to believe all sort of things that don't ordinarily happen, like virgin birth, resurrection, ascension into heaven and life after death for those who believe such things.

So, I mean, growing up I never questioned. My family was Catholic. My school. My community: friends, friends' parents, teachers, doctors . . . it was a very insular, Catholic community. Sure, there were other Christian groups (and not really much else) but we didn't really mingle (unless you had friends/neighbors who didn't go to our church/school). So, what was taught/preached was how it was, without question.

As an adult, in addition to other issues I have, I have questioned some of this. But, I don't think those things are inherently harmful to believe (like some of the other issues I have). So, I haven't spent a lot of time grappling with it, if I'm being honest. And since I don't practice and we are not raising our kids that way, I don't really have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents, who are lifelong Republicans and genuinely try to be Christlike people, are increasingly aghast by what some of their friends believe. It’s really wild. So much of what is being espoused by evangelicals right now does not even begin to pass the “what would Jesus do?” test.

Former Catholic here.

This is how I feel watching Catholic family and friends. Their views and statements on a variety of issues are so out of line with what I was taught (K-12 Catholic school, Catholic immigrant families, took part in all sacraments . . . I was raised in a hard core Catholic environment). I find it repulsive and confusing. And I cannot talk about it with them. Though THEY (not I) have raised issues with me, those attempts have gone badly. If you even delicately point out why their position seems at odds with WWJD, they lash out (also un-Jesus-like).

Unfortunately, it has colored my views of them. It's hard to see people preaching Bible verses, Lenten sacrifices, and other on-the-surface Catholicism do a 180 when out of the church parking lot: name-calling and hostility, promoting policies that do not help the poor or needy, the victim complex, the willingness to deny other people rights b/c of the their "rights", among other things.

Has it colored your views of Catholicism? After all, it, like other religions, expects followers to believe all sort of things that don't ordinarily happen, like virgin birth, resurrection, ascension into heaven and life after death for those who believe such things.

So, I mean, growing up I never questioned. My family was Catholic. My school. My community: friends, friends' parents, teachers, doctors . . . it was a very insular, Catholic community. Sure, there were other Christian groups (and not really much else) but we didn't really mingle (unless you had friends/neighbors who didn't go to our church/school). So, what was taught/preached was how it was, without question.

As an adult, in addition to other issues I have, I have questioned some of this. But, I don't think those things are inherently harmful to believe (like some of the other issues I have). So, I haven't spent a lot of time grappling with it, if I'm being honest. And since I don't practice and we are not raising our kids that way, I don't really have to.

Yes -- Given that you aren't raising your kids Catholic, it sounds like you rejected Catholicism without grappling with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think general public perception of Christians has changed significantly last 4 years.

Christians = far right republicans = crazy DT supporters = hate filled whites

You know, I think it's always been this way.... it's just that they are losing power in society so the masks are falling away to reveal what they really are. Nobody's falling for it anymore.
–white lady raised christian

+1

[Anonymous]

The Up First podcast just did a bonus episode on this topic. If you're looking for it, it's the Sunday February 21 episode. Really interesting. I felt myself getting frustrated at how much disinformation there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents, who are lifelong Republicans and genuinely try to be Christlike people, are increasingly aghast by what some of their friends believe. It’s really wild. So much of what is being espoused by evangelicals right now does not even begin to pass the “what would Jesus do?” test.

+1 The term "Christian Nationalism" is an oxymoron. Christ taught his followers that we are not citizens of the physical world but of heaven.

It is frightening, and as a Christian, I don't blame people for turning againt Christianity.

As one Christian theologian has observed, the Bible mentions all the nations of the world coming together in unity precisely three times. And on each of those three occasions, they are coming together in united opposition to God.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in the upper Midwest (medium sized town in WI) that for decades was always the land of the Catholics and the Lutherans. There were a handful of SBC, Apostolic, etc. churches but they tended to be small, kind of insular affairs that really weren't "pervasive" or anything. But in the past 15-20 years there has been a surge of these evangelical megachurches. And they are siphoning off a TON of Catholics and Lutherans. To the unsuspecting eye they look sooo welcoming - upbeat music, sermons that are easy to understand, bright lights, high energy children's programs (as opposed to the boring read-a-textbook-in-a-smelly-Catholic-school-cafeteria style CCD I went through), sprawling campuses, coffee shops, ~hip~ young pastors...but the amount of white nationalism, homophobia, and anti-intellectualism that hides under the shadows of these "cool" churches is actually such a terrifying phenomenon. This brand of Christianity is like the opposite everything Christianity is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Crusades?

You've obviously never read Fred Donner's Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, c 1982 if memory serves.

IN mid-7th Century, the Prophet, having relocated to Medina caught that Acela to Paradise in 632. For the balance of the 7th century, the Rashidun
Caliphs went a jihading in every direction.

Conquered the Near East and North Africa, which had been Christian for centuries previously. The First Crusade was in 1092... some 450 years of Islamic conquest and occupation AFTER the early Islamic conquests. If your academic experience of the Crusades was filtered through multi-cultural political correctness you've never heard this.

The Crusades were a penitential quest for European nobles many of whom were quite wealthy already, had all the land they needed, and frankly couldn't afford vassal states hundreds of miles from home even if that had been their intention. Which is was not. It went off the rails in some places, some atrocities were committed. Which was NOT the point of the endeavor.

The First Crusade was a brief, local success in places before it became a disaster. The other crusades were total disasters for Christendom. Various local Muslim rulers easily handed them their heads. figuratively speaking and sometimes literally.

Crusades, Crusades...European people Bad ... wah wah wah. Yeah, you can believe that. If you ignore all the contrary history you've never heard.

I have a graduate degree in the history of the middle east with a focus on the crusades, and I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Crusades?

You've obviously never read Fred Donner's Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, c 1982 if memory serves.

IN mid-7th Century, the Prophet, having relocated to Medina caught that Acela to Paradise in 632. For the balance of the 7th century, the Rashidun
Caliphs went a jihading in every direction.

Conquered the Near East and North Africa, which had been Christian for centuries previously. The First Crusade was in 1092... some 450 years of Islamic conquest and occupation AFTER the early Islamic conquests. If your academic experience of the Crusades was filtered through multi-cultural political correctness you've never heard this.

The Crusades were a penitential quest for European nobles many of whom were quite wealthy already, had all the land they needed, and frankly couldn't afford vassal states hundreds of miles from home even if that had been their intention. Which is was not. It went off the rails in some places, some atrocities were committed. Which was NOT the point of the endeavor.

The First Crusade was a brief, local success in places before it became a disaster. The other crusades were total disasters for Christendom. Various local Muslim rulers easily handed them their heads. figuratively speaking and sometimes literally.

Crusades, Crusades...European people Bad ... wah wah wah. Yeah, you can believe that. If you ignore all the contrary history you've never heard.

I have a graduate degree in the history of the middle east with a focus on the crusades, and I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Seems like pp's point is espousing views of white nationalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember the Crusades?

You've obviously never read Fred Donner's Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press, c 1982 if memory serves.

IN mid-7th Century, the Prophet, having relocated to Medina caught that Acela to Paradise in 632. For the balance of the 7th century, the Rashidun
Caliphs went a jihading in every direction.

Conquered the Near East and North Africa, which had been Christian for centuries previously. The First Crusade was in 1092... some 450 years of Islamic conquest and occupation AFTER the early Islamic conquests. If your academic experience of the Crusades was filtered through multi-cultural political correctness you've never heard this.

The Crusades were a penitential quest for European nobles many of whom were quite wealthy already, had all the land they needed, and frankly couldn't afford vassal states hundreds of miles from home even if that had been their intention. Which is was not. It went off the rails in some places, some atrocities were committed. Which was NOT the point of the endeavor.

The First Crusade was a brief, local success in places before it became a disaster. The other crusades were total disasters for Christendom. Various local Muslim rulers easily handed them their heads. figuratively speaking and sometimes literally.

Crusades, Crusades...European people Bad ... wah wah wah. Yeah, you can believe that. If you ignore all the contrary history you've never heard.

I have a graduate degree in the history of the middle east with a focus on the crusades, and I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Seems like pp's point is to espouse white nationalist views

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think general public perception of Christians has changed significantly last 4 years.

Christians = far right republicans = crazy DT supporters = hate filled whites

I would just add the word "evangelical" i.e.,

Evangelical Christians = far right republicans = crazy DT supporters = hate filled whites

Not all Christians are like that, but because the evangelicals make the most noise, they are giving all Christians a bad name.

We are very evangelical but not far right and are very much anti DT. So while you are right that it’s a subgroup of Christians, it’s also a subgroup of evangelicals.

Yeah but something like almost 90% of evangelicals voted for Trump so their “subgroup” is w-a-y bigger than yours. The “it’s not my type of Christianity” is a problem because to the outside world, THIS is the visible, loud Christianity. I hate it because it goes against everything that Jesus taught about love, humbleness, doing the right thing quietly, living the poor and downtrodden most of all. The extremist swing of the evangelicals should worry all Christians.

—Christian who left evangelical church to go to mainline Protestant over these issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the upper Midwest (medium sized town in WI) that for decades was always the land of the Catholics and the Lutherans. There were a handful of SBC, Apostolic, etc. churches but they tended to be small, kind of insular affairs that really weren't "pervasive" or anything. But in the past 15-20 years there has been a surge of these evangelical megachurches. And they are siphoning off a TON of Catholics and Lutherans. To the unsuspecting eye they look sooo welcoming - upbeat music, sermons that are easy to understand, bright lights, high energy children's programs (as opposed to the boring read-a-textbook-in-a-smelly-Catholic-school-cafeteria style CCD I went through), sprawling campuses, coffee shops, ~hip~ young pastors...but the amount of white nationalism, homophobia, and anti-intellectualism that hides under the shadows of these "cool" churches is actually such a terrifying phenomenon. This brand of Christianity is like the opposite everything Christianity is about.

+1

I grew up evangelical, and this was my experience too.