There are 61,000,000 white evangelicals in the US. 49,000,000 voted for Trump in 2020. That was 67% of Trump's total vote of 74,000,000. About one-half of white evangelicals live in the South. They tend to be ill-informed and less educated than the average American. They are on the far-right fringes of Christianity, basically identifiable with fundamentalists, with both groups reading the Bible as literal. They key on hellfire and damnation while paying lip service to the Christian ideal of loving thy neighbor.

Their claim to support Trump on “pro-life” grounds is a religious feint and masks their true propensity toward nationalism and racism.

Conservative commentator and evangelical Christian David A. French writes: “We know that opposition to abortion rights motivates white Evangelicals far less than their leaders’ rhetoric would suggest. Eastern Illinois University’s Ryan Burge, a leading statistician of American religion, has noted that immigration drove Evangelical support for Donald Trump more than abortion.”

Many essentially see politics as a great battle between White, Christian America and the multiracial, religiously diverse reality of 21st century America. Government is there not to produce legislative fixes to real-world problems but to engage their enemies on behalf of White Christianity.

Other statistics connected to white evangelists bolster the view that racism or defense of white supremacy is at the heart of the Republican Party. PRRI's (Public Religious Research Institute) chief executive Robert P. Jones writes:


Among voters who hold an unfavorable view of the Black Lives Matter movement, believe the U.S. criminal justice system treats all people fairly, or believe that racism is a minor problem or not a problem at all, more than eight in ten voted for Donald Trump.



The fixation with defining the United States as a White Christian nation is on full display nightly on Fox News, where replacement theory — not abortion or gay rights — drives so much more of the conversation, says Jennifer Rubin.

In this context, White evangelical Christians’ attraction to the thrice-married philanderer Trump is understandable, as is their support for the cruelest immigration policies (e.g., child separation) and the anti-Muslim travel ban – even the claim of forbidding “Merry Christmas”. It’s all about race and religious identity, not policies founded on Christian values.

Their minority status is what has fueled the MAGA movement. Because they can never win (at least in a democracy with free and accurate elections), their political venom will not abate.

The aims of White evangelicals run smack into the American ideal that “all men are created equal” and constitutional protections that allow no bias against any particular religion or racial group. In that regard, they have become deeply antidemocratic.

Until the emergence of Trump, they had been self-contained in their rural worlds of religion. With Trump, they have emerged as a potent and dangerous political force.

If there is any hope for this group, it lies with the fraction of White Evangelists who do NOT fit the MAGA category and believe truly in the core message of Christianity and Jesus Christ.

Ill-informed opinion. Nothing more. And as is often the case, he's guilty of plagiarism such as here. "The fixation with defining the United States as a White Christian nation is on full display nightly on Fox News, where replacement theory — not abortion or gay rights — drives so much more of the conversation, says Jennifer Rubin.

In this context, White evangelical Christians’ attraction to the thrice-married philanderer Trump is understandable, as is their support for the cruelest immigration policies (e.g., child separation) and the anti-Muslim travel ban – even the claim of forbidding “Merry Christmas”. It’s all about race and religious identity, not policies founded on Christian values."

https://www.blueridgemuse.com/node/62181

Ill-informed opinion. Nothing more.

You call it ill-informed opinion, yet you could not successfully challenge a SINGLE point made !!

Calling it plagiarism is not an argument against the truth of what is written.

I don't have to refute it. It's your claims, so it's up to you to document them. "Says Jennifer Rubin," scarcely qualifies as documentation.

Pointing out your plagiarism is an argument in favor of basic honesty. You do it repeatedly. It's a bad look, and it's such a simple problem to fix that I'm surprised you haven't stopped. Citing a source and using quotation marks is about as easy as it gets.

I don't have to refute it.

Obviously, because you can't.


Pointing out your plagiarism is an argument in favor of basic honesty.

The far larger point is that you are unable to refer to the points made so you deflect to plagiarism. This is not new for you.

If you complain about plagiarism, you do the same thing in spades and you have been doing it for many, many months. Physician, heal thyself.

You are a plagiarist, which is to say you are dishonest, and even moreso when out of desperation and embarrassment from having been caught repeatedly, you claim it of me. Alas, we both know you cannot demonstrate a single instance.

It's funny because I can usually tell when you are doing it. Your writing is good but not THAT good, and so when I see material like you posted above, I am immediately suspicious. It's easy enough to verify. A simple Bing search gets the job done in just a few minutes.

You want me to refute the rantings of that great expert on all things evangelical, Jennifer Rubin? Uhm, I think it's not really necessary. I can't imagine any greater waste of time.

Make an appeal to some solid documentation and we can go from there. I'll even make a start for you. The great majority of white evangelicals oppose both abortion and radical preferences for the LGBT folks. Quite naturally they would not vote in favor of the radically pro-abortion and pro-LGBT silliness team of Harris/Biden.

Please note that the wording was all mine and I have provided a link to the data I used. I try to be a good example to you.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/white-evangelicals-distinct-lgbtq-rights-abortion-n1109446

You are a plagiarist, which is to say you are dishonest, and even moreso when out of desperation and embarrassment from having been caught repeatedly, you claim it of me. Alas, we both know you cannot demonstrate a single instance.

In addition to being a plagiarist, you are easily the nastiest person on this board. Not a single person supports you as you pull all your nasty tricks including lying and changing horses in midstream - not to mention your fervent and ridiculous claim that snakes talk.

Where in scripture does it say you are not a plagiarist. Prove that you're not a plagiarist. You claim you are not - prove it.

Oh calm down. You have plagiarized repeatedly. I have not. Instead of getting ugly, just stop doing it. Easy solution. Pointing out your plagiarism is not being ugly.

Oh calm down. You have admitted to plagiarizing. Instead of getting ugly, just stop doing it. Easy solution. Pointing out your plagiarism is not being ugly.

Can't prove it, can you? Well, you had your chance. Your true nature is here for all to see. Ignoring/Changing the subject won't help you this time.

Second chance:

Where in scripture does it say you are not a plagiarist. Prove that you're not a plagiarist. You claim you are not - prove it.

I have not plagiarized. There’s your proof

You have plagiarized just recently in this thread. There’s your proof.

Case closed.

I have not plagiarized. There’s your proof

Try again. A lie/denial from you is not proof.

Third chance:

Where in scripture does it say you are not a plagiarist. Prove that you're not a plagiarist. You claim you are not - prove it.

He ran away.

Guess he didn't like getting a taste of his own medicine.

What bugs me is that fundamentalist Christians have stolen the evangelical adjective from Lutherans. Many Lutheran churches have "evangelical" in their name -- e.g., St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church. Lutherans want to spread the Gospel, thus evangelize. And now "evangelical" means what? Definitely not spreading the Gospel!

He ran away.I posted on 12/5. You replied all of 20 days later, so perhaps a little patience would be in order.

Where Athos has plagiarized.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848212&page=18&p=3873195#post3873195

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848612&p=3875864#post3875864

Now if...if...if you can document where I have lied, plagiarized, changed horses in midstream, or claimed that snakes talk, then we can discuss it. Until then, as I said earlier, case closed.

You do get the award for the absolutely most bizarre question in AMHD history. "Where in scripture does it say you are not a plagiarist." And you amplified the decidedly peculiar nature of the question by asking it 3 times.


And now "evangelical" means what?Good question. This is what Luther said. I like it.


"For Luther, the gospel of grace saves us apart from any works of the law. As his colleague Philip Melancthon wrote, “The Law shows the disease, the Gospel the cure.”[7] The Bible is full of law and gospel, command and promise. The New Testament is not simply gospel, while Old Testament law. As Luther says of the Old Testament: “Here you will find the swaddling cloths and the manger in which Criest lies, and to which the angel points the shepherds [Luke 2:12 (https://www.esv.org/Luke%202%3A12/)].”[8]

As a general tendency, Luther admits that the Old Testament emphasizes law, while the New Testament highlights grace. But the Old Testament still promises the Gospel (e.g. Gen 3:15 (https://www.esv.org/Gen%203%3A15/)), while the New Testament conveys commands to help us restrain the flesh. In this sense, the categories of law and gospel and the broader categories of command and grace help us make sense of how to read the whole Bible.

The Gospel is God’s approval of us on the basis of God clothing us with the righteousness of Christ. In his 1520 treatise, On The Freedom of the Christian, Luther uses the analogy of marriage. When a bride marries a bridegroom, everything she has belongs to him; and the bridegroom shares with her his whole life. In the Gospel, we give up entirely our sin and Christ gives entirely his righteousness. We are then by this union justified by faith. An alien (foreign) righteousness becomes ours by faith.

Christ is our righteousness. Any works done after our justification matter, according to Luther, because it pleases God (not salvifically) and because we need to love our neighbours. A good tree, he avers, produces good fruit. The law does not need to threaten us anymore. The moral law, however, still guides us in our Christian walk. Hence, Luther will include the Ten Commandments in his catechisms."

https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/martin-luther-getting-the-law-and-gospel-right/#:~:text=The%20Gospel%20is%20God%E2%80%99s%20appro val%20of%20us%20on,the%20bridegroom%20shares%20wit h%20her%20his%20whole%20life.

Good question. This is what Luther said. I like it.
Unfortunately, the fundamentalists who stole the evangelical adjective aren't using it in that sense at all, never referring to efforts to bring the Gospel to unbelievers. Thus, my question: "And now 'evangelical' means what?"

(P.S. Lutherans are rethinking that adjective and are considering removing it from church names or replacing it with a different adjective.)

never referring to efforts to bring the Gospel to unbelievers.Not sure why you say that. The evangelicals I am familiar with (Southern Baptists, for instance) are fully committed to missions and gospel preaching. They also do a lot of good work in disaster relief efforts and assisting the poor. Who are you referring to?

Not sure why you say that. The evangelicals I am familiar with (Southern Baptists, for instance) are fully committed to missions and gospel preaching.
Do they tout themselves as evangelicals?

They do.


Evangelical: Southern Baptists are Evangelical, meaning they adhere to the belief that while humanity is fallen, the good news is that Christ came to pay the penalty for sin on the cross. That penalty, now paid in full, means God offers forgiveness and new life as a free gift. All who receive Christ as Lord may have it. The message is so vital that telling it is like sharing a cure for cancer. One could not keep it to himself. Evangelism and missions have a supreme place in Baptist life.

https://www.learnreligions.com/southern-baptist-beliefs-700524

Southern Baptists = White evangelicals

So? Are we to be racially prejudiced about such things?

You do realize the vast majority of Lutherans are white? They are, in fact, considerably less diverse than the SBC crowd. How are Lutherans addressing that?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/

So? Are we to be racially prejudiced about such things?
Are they racially prejudiced?

Not that I know of, though in my experience most people, probably including you and me, harbor some racial prejudices of some sort.

But we are going astray. I'd still like to know who you were thinking about when you, in reference to evangelicals, said, "never referring to efforts to bring the Gospel to unbelievers?"

You also did not comment on your VERY racially segregated church affiliation.

"You do realize the vast majority of Lutherans are white? They are, in fact, considerably less diverse than the SBC crowd. How are Lutherans addressing that?"

You do realize the vast majority of Lutherans are white?
Yes, that is true. Black Lutherans, partly because of their energetic style of praise and worship (vs. the dour, unemotional German white version), have formed their own congregations and attached schools. I was very fortunate in the '60s to do my student teaching at a Black Lutheran school in a Chicago neighborhood. Above the altar was a magnificent statue of a Black Jesus.

So how are Lutherans addressing that? You seemed to be critical of the SBC folks but very tolerant of segregation amongst your own church. Is that a fair analysis?

Now if...if...if you can document where I have lied, plagiarized, changed horses in midstream, or claimed that snakes talk, then we can discuss it.

It is up to you to prove that you haven't.

Have you so soon forgotten that it has been YOUR demand for others to prove a negative? Have you forgotten that you consistently challenged others to prove something by quoting where in scripture it can be found? Have you forgotten that you stated here in black and white than snakes talk?

Remember that what you have posted in these pages will never go away and will haunt you whenever you deny what you have written.

You want to discuss these things. What is there to discuss? Your denying them just adds to your bed of lies. Lie down in it if you wish.

You use scripture like a weapon to impale anyone you disagree with. Remember that Satan can quote scripture just like you do.

Rather can continuing to deflect from the questions you so love when they fit into your skewed commentary, here they are again for YOU to answer now that they put you on the spot where you find it uncomfortable so you deny and lie.

Where in scripture does it say you are not a plagiarist. Prove that you're not a plagiarist. You claim you are not - prove it.

Where Athos has plagiarized.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...95#post3873195 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848212&page=18&p=3873195#post3873195)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...64#post3875864 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848612&p=3875864#post3875864)

Now if...if...if you can document where I have lied, plagiarized, changed horses in midstream, or claimed that snakes talk, then we can discuss it. Until then, as I said earlier, case closed.

You do get the award for the absolutely most bizarre question in AMHD history. "Where in scripture does it say you are not a plagiarist." And you amplified the decidedly peculiar nature of the question by asking it 3 times.

Go on all you want. Until you document as I did of you, the case is closed.


BTW, I have never asked you to prove a negative. That's another one you would have to document for me to believe. Why do these unsubstantiated and false allegations seem to be a habit with you? Is it somehow linked to your willingness to plagiarize?

Why do these unsubstantiated and false allegations seem to be a habit with you?

Unsubstantiated? False?

Then it should be child's play for you to prove from scripture that you are not a plagiarist. If not scripture, then prove you are not a plagiarist from any source your heart desires.

How does that dish taste when it is served to you?

This has become past ridiculous. I called you out for plagiarizing which you clearly did. Instead of simply saying that plagiarism on an obscure website visited by never more than a half dozen people is not a big problem, a position I would likely have agreed with, instead we get such childish nonsense as you have posted above. You have been able to document nothing, so I'll leave you in your vain search of the Bible to see if it mentions anything about a person in the 21st century committing plagiarism, a search which you can be assured will be undertaken by no one else on the face of the earth and wisely so. Perhaps you should ponder that. Good luck.

I had hoped WG would continue the conversation about evangelicals and the almost entirely white Lutheran church, but I suppose that won't take place. Too bad. It was interesting.

So how are Lutherans addressing that? You seemed to be critical of the SBC folks but very tolerant of segregation amongst your own church. Is that a fair analysis?
I'm not critical of the SBC folks, no more than the LCMS dour German Lutherans. SB worship styles are actually much closer to Black worship styles than Lutheran are. Thus, to attract non-whites, a new more all-inclusive Lutheran church body, the ELCA, was formed in 1988.

Wikipedia:
The word Southern in "Southern Baptist Convention" stems from its having been organized in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusta,_Georgia), by Baptists in the Southern United States (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) who split with northern Baptists (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Churches_USA) (known today as the American Baptist Churches USA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Baptist_Churches_USA)) over the issue of slavery (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States), with Southern Baptists strongly opposed to its abolition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States).[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#cite_note-4) After the American Civil War (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), another split occurred when most freedmen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen) set up independent black congregations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_church), regional associations, and state and national conventions, such as the National Baptist Convention (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Baptist_Convention,_USA,_Inc.), which became the second-largest Baptist convention by the end of the 19th century.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention


I had hoped WG would continue the conversation about evangelicals and the almost entirely white Lutheran church, but I suppose that won't take place. Too bad. It was interesting.
WG was busy with, among other activities, eating her dinner. Why so negative?

WG was busy with, among other activities, eating her dinner. Why so negative?Didn't mean to come across negative. You had just seemed to drop out. That's all. No harm intended.

I think most of the vastly majority white protestant organizations are trying, to some degree, to reach other groups. It's not going to be easy. The drug rehab outfit I go to on Sunday mornings is overwhelmingly white but we do have some black men. Everyone seems to mix together well enough.

If you didn't intend to be critical of the SBC folks, then why did you post your quote about the unsavory beginnings of the SBC? At any rate, the SBC had it's racist past at about the same time as the Democrat party. Oh well.

Didn't mean to come across negative. You had just seemed to drop out. That's all. No harm intended.
It hadn't been that long!!!!

I think most of the vastly majority white protestant organizations are trying, to some degree, to reach other groups. It's not going to be easy. The drug rehab outfit I go to on Sunday mornings is overwhelmingly white but we do have some black men. Everyone seems to mix together well enough.
Yes, and whites need to reach out more. That's what I especially loved about my library job(s). That library was (is) a much-loved community center, the community being composed of every race and nationality you can think of. Once someone opens the front door and walks inside, all grievances disappear.

If you didn't intend to be critical of the SBC folks, then why did you post your quote about the unsavory beginnings of the SBC? At any rate, the SBC had it's racist past at about the same time as the Democrat party. Oh well.
Some of them are still white, racist Republicans. And don't forget about the two parties flip-flopping ideologies.

Yes, and whites need to reach out more. That's what I especially loved about my library job(s). That library was (is) a much-loved community center, the community being composed of every race and nationality you can think of. Once someone opens the front door and walks inside, all grievances disappear.I doubt that to be the case. Grievances don't disappear simply because someone walks through a door.



Some of them are still white, racist Republicans. And don't forget about the two parties flip-flopping ideologies.Strange how you confine racism to whites only and repubs only. Very strange indeed. Biden has made racist remarks. HC made racist remarks. Sharpton is a major league racist. So is Jesse Jackson. All of them are...dems!!

I doubt that to be the case. Grievances don't disappear simply because someone walks through a door.
Work in public libraries for thirty years. Then we will talk. A black teenager would hold the door open for a Chinese grandmother and also for a Latina pushing a baby stroller. A fat, bald white guy would help pick up the books a Black child.dropped.

Strange how you confine racism to whites only and repubs only.
I didn't. And I was born and raised among them, went to their SBC VBS every summer. Again, don't forget the flip-flop.

Work in public libraries for thirty years. Then we will talk. A black teenager would hold the door open for a Chinese grandmother and also for a Latina pushing a baby stroller. A fat, bald white guy would help pick up the books a Black child.dropped.I could say the same thing about working in schools for 34 years. But the things you described certainly don't indicate a dropping of grievances among everyone who just walked through the doors.


I didn't. And I was born and raised among them, went to their SBC VBS every summer. Again, don't forget the flip-flop.Of course you did. You were very specific about whites and repubs being racists. "Some of them are still white, racist Republicans." And if a flip flop resulted in the lowest unemployment amongst blacks in history, then we sure need more flip flops!! The only black SCOTUS justice was appointed by a repub. First black woman elected to statewide office in Virginia is a repub. First black woman as NSA was a repub. First black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and first black Secretary of State was a repub. Yep. Hooray for flip-flops!

And then there is Joe Biden.

1. Biden lectured about the fears that blacks may have of the vaccine, attempting to point to historically shameful episodes when they were subjected to inhumane medical experiments. “They are used to being experimented on—the Tuskegee Airmen and others,” Biden said. In this, he confused legendary World War II fighter pilots with a long, notorious governmental study of syphilis among black men—the Tuskegee Experiment which was, incidentally, conducted by a democrat administration.

2. In 2007, he referred to Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”
3. In 2006, he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
4. Way back in 1977, he said that forced busing to desegregate schools would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.”
5. And, of course, who could forget this? "At a campaign event in Iowa, Biden told supporters (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-says-poor-kids-just-as-bright-as-white-kids-in-latest-gaffe) “poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.” He quickly corrected himself after some applause by adding: “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids.”

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/bidens-history-getting-away-racist-remarks

You have been able to document nothing

It is not my job to document anything - it is your job to prove exactly where in scripture it says that you are not guilty of plagiarism. You say you are not a plagiarist- so prove it outside of scripture. How many times will you refuse to prove you are not a plagiarist?

Hint: Google the goose and the gander.

It is not my job to document anythingYou cannot document what amounts to nothing more than conjecture. It's why I said, "Ill-informed opinion. Nothing more."

I could say the same thing about working in schools for 34 years. But the things you described certainly don't indicate a dropping of grievances among everyone who just walked through the doors.
When they walked through those library doors, grievances were dropped. I never heard or heard about, saw, or was involved in a heated argument, fistfight, shooting while inside library walls. And part of our training was learning how to avoid and prevent any outburst from occurring.

Grievances are held in the heart. You have no access to their hearts.

Grievances are held in the heart. You have no access to their hearts.
Why are you being so negative? This is why I disappear.

The library gives them a place to put those grievances aside. Healing can begin.

You say you want a discussion. That’s what this is. Disagreement is not negativity.

You say you want a discussion. That’s what this is. Disagreement is not negativity.
It wasn't disagreement. It was deliberate negativity. Please be constructive.

And, yes, libraries and library staff have access to their hearts.

It wasn't disagreement. It was deliberate negativity. Please be constructive.Isn't your statement "deliberate negativity"? Since it plainly is, why aren't you adhering your own standard?

How would you have access to the hearts of those who walked into your library?

Isn't your statement "deliberate negativity"? Since it plainly is, why aren't you adhering your own standard?
Nope, it isn't. This is a teaching moment.

How would you have access to the hearts of those who walked into your library?
Ah, now there's a terrific discussion topic!

Nope, it isn't. This is a teaching moment.

Isn't is strange how when you do it, it's a "teaching moment", but when I do it, it's being "negative"? Giving yourself quite an out there, aren't you? You do realize how suspicious that looks?


Ah, now there's a terrific discussion topic!
[I await your insights.

How would you have access to the hearts of those who walked into your library?
The people who walk into a library are:

Great explanation. (SARC)

Opening up the discussion.... please respond.

Who comes into a library?

I don’t know. What do you think?

I don’t know. What do you think?
I don't think. I know.

I don’t think you know either.

You walked right into that one.

I don’t think you know either.
You think you're tricky, don't you. (I've seen them stream in for almost 30 years.)

You have? And yet you can’t describe them??

That’s very strange.

That’s fine. All you’re doing is asking silly questions anyway. In order to discuss a topic, you need to make statements.

Good night.

Who comes into a library? Anyone. Everyone. People of all ages and for a variety of reasons. Babies, small children, 'tweens, teens, adults of any age, students, teachers, professors, retired adults, elderly or even younger who are disabled and use canes or walkers or wheelchairs. They come in as observers, visitors, patrons, want to make photocopies, work on a public-use computer, do homework, prep their lessons for the next day, volunteer or work off their court-ordered community service hours. They represent a variety of cultures, languages, races. They are homeless, poor, middle-class, wealthy.

Ok. What does that have to do with you being able to see into their hearts?

Ok. What does that have to do with you being able to see into their hearts?
They speak from their heart as they ask reference questions; ask for help finding material to read, watch, research, or listen to (audiobooks); as they check out material (books, DVDs, CDs, etc.) or return those materials.

Library staff are welcoming and are good listeners. People tell us very private and rather amazingly personal things. They open their hearts to us, and we proceed from there.

Sorry, but I just don't believe that you had those heart to heart conversations with all of the people who walked through the doors. 1 out of every 10 maybe, but even then you could not see into their hearts. Partially, perhaps, but certainly not fully. I just think your statement was waayyyy overstated.

If you remember, this is the original statement of yours I questioned. "Once someone opens the front door and walks inside, all grievances disappear." Not only do I not believe it, but I don't think you would have any way of knowing that to begin with. A few of them yes, but anything even approaching all? No way.

I'm sure you had wonderful exchanges with many of them. I wouldn't doubt that at all.

Yes, all grievances disappear. Everyone goes there for a positive reason. And even during conversation as books are checked out or reference questions are answered, there's a human interplay of kindness and sharing, using verbal as well as non-verbal communication.

In some cases yes. In all cases no. You would have no way of even knowing that.

You cannot document what amounts to nothing more than conjecture. It's why I said, "Ill-informed opinion. Nothing more."


I'm encouraged that you are finally beginning to realize that documenting what amounts to nothing is an impossibility and is “nothing more than conjecture”. Perhaps now you can understand what proving a negative means and how it is an impossibility.

The next step in your education is to go back to all the Bible/scripture arguments of yours where you demanded proof of something that never existed. You argued that absence proved your position, but that is not true, The absence of proof is not proof.

For example, your argument that God or Jesus or Tertullian or anyone did NOT say the opposite of what you are claiming proves that your claim is true is, of course, false reasoning. You did that many times.

I do not expect you to fully understand the point. Learning comes in small steps.

The far more important issue is the initial post re white evangelicals. Rather than respond to that post, you took the path of deflection. That is the path of those who cannot or will not respond.

And again, you must document your fairy tales. Until then, they remain just that. Anytime you start a sentence with, "When you said..." then I know the fiction is about to begin.

For your benefit, here is a stellar example of how it works.


Where Athos has plagiarized.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...95#post3873195 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848212&page=18&p=3873195#post3873195)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...64#post3875864 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848612&p=3875864#post3875864)The truth here is obvious to everyone. You were caught plagiarizing. Instead of just moving on from it, as it really wasn't that big of a deal, you became angry and have been just throwing out random accusations since then. It's a poor strategy.

In some cases yes. In all cases no. You would have no way of even knowing that.
Grievances disappear while we interact with them and while they interact with each other (in writing groups, book discussion groups, kids' storytimes, teen in-library activities, etc.). The library offers people a kinder, gentler world. We encourage them to take those same attitudes with them when they leave the library. And yes, we do find out in future comments that it indeed happens.

So back to where this library detour began:

"Yes, and whites need to reach out more. That's what I especially loved about my library job(s). That library was (is) a much-loved community center, the community being composed of every race and nationality you can think of. Once someone opens the front door and walks inside, all grievances disappear."

Grievances disappear while we interact with them and while they interact with each other (in writing groups, book discussion groups, kids' storytimes, teen in-library activities, etc.). The library offers people a kinder, gentler world.The first two paragraphs are probably closer to the truth. You had stated, "When they walked through those library doors, grievances were dropped." In some cases I imagine that's true. The same thing is true of schools I worked in, but we certainly were not able to solve everyone's grievances anymore than you were able to. If you insist on saying you were, then we have simply reached an impasse. I commend you for the culture you say prevailed there. It's a great objective, but no reasonable person would believe that you basically managed to solve everyone's grievances. Top psychiatrists don't have that level of success, and you and I are certainly not top psychiatrists.

That's probably closer to the truth. You had stated, "When they walked through those library doors, grievances were dropped." In some cases I imagine that's true. The same thing is true of schools I worked in, but we certainly were not able to solve everyone's grievances anymore than you were able to. If you insist on saying you were, then we have simply reached an impasse. I commend you for the culture you say prevailed there. It's a great objective, but no reasonable person would believe that you basically managed to solve everyone's grievances. Top psychiatrists don't have that level of success, and you and I are certainly not top psychiatrists.
Why are you adding words and false meanings to what I posted? Please stop!

Oh? How so?

Is this not what you said? " Once someone opens the front door and walks inside, all grievances disappear."

Oh? How so?

Is this not what you said? " Once someone opens the front door and walks inside, all grievances disappear."
Yes,I wrote that. Then you wrote this:
"we certainly were not able to solve everyone's grievances anymore than you were able to."

***Now, put on your thinking cap. Did I say we were able to solve everyone's grievances?***

When they walked through those library doors, grievances were dropped.Another quote from you. That's four times you said such a statement. Now you are backing off of it. Good for you.

I responded earlier, "But the things you described certainly don't indicate a dropping of grievances among everyone who just walked through the doors."

You replied, "When they walked through those library doors, grievances were dropped. I never heard or heard about, saw, or was involved in a heated argument, fistfight, shooting while inside library walls. And part of our training was learning how to avoid and prevent any outburst from occurring."

If you didn't mean "everyone's", then that would have been a good place to say so. Thankfully, you say it now.

Another quote from you. That's four times you said such a statement. Now you are backing off of it. Good for you.
Not at all. Grievances were dropped, DISAPPEARED, when people walked into the library. I didn't say those grievances were remedied, cured, removed. They were put aside while people were in the library.

The truth here is obvious to everyone.

What is truth? Is it talking snakes? A genocidal God? A monstrosity of a God who torments anyone who he doesn't like - for all eternity? Is this REALLY your role model for truth?

Yet you dwell on plagiarism, a habit you yourself are guilty of. You cannot own up and prove that you are not guilty. Everyone awaits your proof. Yet, it is not forthcoming. Everyone wonders where is the proof?

When you demand proof from others, you say it is fine to do. When others demand proof from you, you say it is ugly.

Time to end this nonsense of your interminable silly chit-chat. Provide the proof asked for and move on to the serious issue re white evangelicals. Being yourself a white evangelical, your need to obfuscate is obvious.

That truth is obvious to everyone.

Not at all. Grievances were dropped, DISAPPEARED, when people walked into the library. I didn't say those grievances were remedied, cured, removed. They were put aside while people were in the library.Fair enough. You can't see into their hearts, as it turns out, but you did maintain an orderly library. Good for you.


"Yes, and whites need to reach out more. That's what I especially loved about my library job(s). That library was (is) a much-loved community center, the community being composed of every race and nationality you can think of.I would say EVERYONE needs to reach out more. Your Lutheran church seems to be quite unsuccessful in this endeavor, as do, to be fair, most churches, black, white, or otherwise. It is a difficult issue. Exactly why that is true, I don't know.




That truth is obvious to everyone.




Yes indeed, it is. I document. You toss around opinions.

I would say EVERYONE needs to reach out more.
And that's what libraries, composed of staff who are not only white but every color people come in, have as their reason for being -- and thus find connection opportunities for patrons and visitors of every race, creed, and color.

So why didn't you employ that idea in the lily-white Lutheran Church?

Would you say that all Christian churches should be committed to at least attempting to reach as many people groups as possible? If so, are you a member of such a church?

So why didn't you employ that idea in the lily-white Lutheran Church?
We did with the effort called "Each One Reach One." The Lutheran Church isn't lily white.

The Lutheran church is about 94% white. "Each one reach one" apparently did not result in reaching non-whites.

At any rate, having worked in schools that contained all sorts of combinations of ethnic groups, including Native Americans, and all sorts of income groups from inner-city kids to children from wealthy homes, I can tell you that racial harmony with children is not terribly difficult in terms of getting along, but in terms of forming long-term, inter-racial friendships, it is much more difficult.

Would you say that all Christian churches should be committed to at least attempting to reach as many people groups as possible? If so, are you a member of such a church?
That's why Lutheran churches often have the adjective "evangelical" in their name, referring to Jesus' Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20.

So do many other churches. It seems to have resulted in wonderful results in Africa or Central America, but not so much in reaching non-whites in America. It seems to be a difficult problem. So I guess I'm asking if you are involved in a church that is presently breaking those racial barriers in the same way you say your library did.

I might add that back in the 80's and 90's I was involved in a local church that was very successful in having a "mixed" congregation. We didn't really do anything unusual other than to commit to preaching the Gospel to everyone, inviting everyone to church, and welcoming everyone who came. It was, however, very much the exception rather than the rule.

So I guess I'm asking if you are involved in a church that is presently breaking those racial barriers in the same way you say your library did.
My library didn't break any racial barriers. The community was, and still is, a little united nations. And I'm no longer involved in church activities, am busy preparing for my journey to heaven.

My library didn't break any racial barriers. The community was, and still is, a little united nations.I wonder if the churches reflect that.

Like I said earlier, schools show the same diversity as far as students and teachers talking and getting along, but once they leave the school and go home, the racial divides tend to show back up.

I wonder if the churches reflect that.
Christian churches? In this area, there are many churches, mosques, and worship centers to give guidance and opportunities for sharing one's beliefs.

My Sikh and Muslim and even agnostic coworkers always reached out to and welcomed and happily helped library patrons and visitors.

Sorry. I thought you were a Christian.

Your Sikh, Muslim, and agnostic coworkers will not be saved by their works. Either that, or Luther was wrong.

Sorry. I thought you were a Christian.
What have I said that makes you think otherwise?

Your Sikh, Muslim, and agnostic coworkers will not be saved by their works. Either that, or Luther was wrong.
You won't be saved by your works either.

This.
Christian churches? In this area, there are many churches, mosques, and worship centers to give guidance and opportunities for sharing one's beliefs.


You won't be saved by your works either.Exactly correct. I like what Luther said about it.


The Gospel is God’s approval of us on the basis of God clothing us with the righteousness of Christ. In his 1520 treatise, On The Freedom of the Christian, Luther uses the analogy of marriage. When a bride marries a bridegroom, everything she has belongs to him; and the bridegroom shares with her his whole life. In the Gospel, we give up entirely our sin and Christ gives entirely his righteousness. We are then by this union justified by faith. An alien (foreign) righteousness becomes ours by faith.
Christ is our righteousness. Any works done after our justification matter, according to Luther, because it pleases God (not salvifically) and because we need to love our neighbours. A good tree, he avers, produces good fruit. The law does not need to threaten us anymore. The moral law, however, still guides us in our Christian walk. Hence, Luther will include the Ten Commandments in his catechisms.

This.
Christian churches are everywhere.

As I said: Christian churches? In this area, there are many churches, mosques, and worship centers to give guidance and opportunities for sharing one's beliefs.

Why mention mosques?

Why mention mosques?
Why not? There's one a few blocks south of us, a Muslim grade school nearby. a Kingdom Hall a few miles east, a Catholic church and school about five blocks north, an Episcopalian church and a Lutheran church and school across from the library, a UCC next to that church, a United Methodist church a few blocks southwest of us ... and more.

Yes, indeed it is.I document.

Then show it by proving you're not a plagiarist. We await your documentation proving that.

Already have. No instances equals documentation. In your case, two instances also equaled documentation.

Might as well give up. You’re behind by fifty with under a minute to go. Game is over.

Already have.

You have not provided any documentation that you are not a plagiarist. Telling lies is another strategy of yours. You must be getting desperate.

Athos is guilty of plagiarism. There is no doubt about it since I documented it. His reply is childish, along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Well so are you!! And since I've accused you, then you document your innocence, pal!" How silly is about all that can be said.

And now, right on schedule, he wants to expand his folly to include lying. For that, of course, he has no evidence. I suppose his next response will be to challenge me to document my non-lying.

Bizarre is an apt description. Bizarre beyond description.

Athos is guilty of plagiarism.

Plagiarism is your issue not mine. I started this thread to discuss white evangelism. You have so far avoided that issue by deflecting to a non-issue of plagiarism. Why can't you discuss white evangelism? It's very suspicious.


And now, right on schedule, he wants to expand his folly to include lying. For that, of course, he has no evidence.

Your lie is your claim that you DID provide documentation that you are not a plagiarist. That's a no-no.


I suppose his next response will be to challenge me to document my non-lying.

Ok, document it. You're very perspicacious.


Bizarre is an apt description. Bizarre beyond description.

The bizarre began with you when you demanded documentation of events and persons quotes that never existed in the early church. I'm only giving you a taste of your own medicine so you will learn to avoid that false argument in the future.

How documentation works. You should try it.

Where Athos has plagiarized.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...95#post3873195 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848212&page=18&p=3873195#post3873195)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...64#post3875864 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848612&p=3875864#post3875864)


Ok, document it. You're very perspicacious.And I was right again! You are entirely too predictable in your wrong thinking.

Your basic problem.

"11) The Burden of Proof Fallacy

If a person claims that X is true (as you have done), it is their responsibility to provide evidence in support of that assertion. It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true. Similarly, it is also invalid to claim that X is true because it's impossible to prove that X is false."

So you make claims and then expect others to prove them. Bad, bad.

"11) The Burden of Proof Fallacy

If a person claims that X is true (as you have done), it is their responsibility to provide evidence in support of that assertion. It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true. Similarly, it is also invalid to claim that X is true because it's impossible to prove that X is false."

AMAZING! You can quote the fallacy but cannot abide by it.

Read that again and again. Then use it.

It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true.Try again.

Try again.

YOU are the one who needs to read it again and again. If you had, and if you had understood it, many unnecessary posts could have been avoided on these pages for the last two years.

This has become wearisome. You plagiarized. I documented it.

You claim I have done so on and so forth. You have not documented it. You made many claims about evangelicals. No documentation there, either. Your tank is empty.

Best wishes.

You plagiarized. I documented it.


It's not about plagiarism, it's about white evangelicism! Is that so hard to understand?