Time magazine wonders if Sarah Palin has "a Pentecostal problem," but a closer look at Pentecostalism in America finds that while Time magazine may have a problem with Pentecostalism, America certainly doesn't, and there's no reason it should be a problem for Palin the way the race-baiting "G-D America" rantings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright were for Barack Obama.
Time does a fairly good job explaining the Pentecostal wing of American and global Christianity, though it gets some things wrong. (For example, many non-Pentecostal Christians also believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, though differ in degrees on how it is manifested in the life of the believer. There are many members and leaders, though not all, within the very conservative and decidedly not-Pentecostal Churches of Christ who believe in the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, for example.)
A couple days ago I had a chat with a friend - a left wing socialist Obama-supporter friend - who warned that Palin's past attendance at an Assemblies of God church would scare off voters the same as Barack Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ became so controversial thanks to the racist anti-American rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
I don't think so. For one, according to various data, there are between 20 million and 30 million Christians in the United States who can be classified as Pentecostals, spread across numerous denominations. That's at least four million more people - and perhaps 14 million more - than the entire membership of the single largest Protestant Christian denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. Pentecostalism is a major part of mainstream Christianity in America and around the world. Major Pentecostal denominations in the United States include the Assemblies of God, the Church of God headquartered in Cleveland, Tennessee, and the largely African-American Church of God in Christ, which is headquartered in Memphis and has 6 million members.
As this map from Valparaiso University shows, Pentecostalism isn't a regionally limited faith, but has adherents nationwide.
Even some churches in various denominations that aren't officially Pentecostal incorporate some pentecostal elements, beliefs and practices. Pentecostalism's cousins in America, include charismatics and neo-charismatics, altogether totaling 80 million Americans. Religion experts call the broad movement "renewalism."
According to Wikipedia, approximately 918,000 Hispanic-Americans, or about 4 percent of Hispanic-Americans, are members of Pentecostal churches, though it doesn't cite a source for the data. Time magazine says "Nearly 20% of American Pentecostals are Latino," which obviously doesn't square with the Wikipedia numbers. A 2006 Los Angeles Times article noted that American Latino Catholics are increasingly leaving the Catholic church for Pentecostal churches. The numbers disparity may be because Hispanic Catholics are increasingly incorporating Pentecostalism into their churches. The Pew Hispanic Center and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life said this in 2007 in an in-depth report on Hispanics and religion in America titled "Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion":
Religious expressions associated with the pentecostal and charismatic movements are a key attribute of worship for Hispanics in all the major religious traditions - far more so than among non-Latinos. Moreover, the growth of the Hispanic population is leading to the emergence of Latino-oriented churches across the country.
About a third of all Catholics in the U.S. are now Latinos, and the study projects that the Latino share will continue climbing for decades. This demographic reality, combined with the distinctive characteristics of Latino Catholicism, ensures that Latinos will bring about important changes in the nation's largest religious institution.
Most significantly given their numbers, more than half of Hispanic Catholics identify themselves as charismatics, compared with only an eighth of non-Hispanic Catholics. While remaining committed to the church and its traditional teachings, many of these Latino Catholics have witnessed or experienced occurrences typical of spirit-filled or renewalist movements, including divine healing and direct revelations from God. Even many Latino Catholics who do not identify themselves as renewalists appear deeply influenced by spirit-filled forms of Christianity.
Similarly, the renewalist movement is a powerful presence among Latino Protestants. More than half of Hispanics in this category identify with spirit-filled religion, compared with about a fifth of non-Hispanic Protestants.
While critics of Palin, like my friend, will try to caricature Pentecostals as backwoods, backwards snake-handlers, the larger Pentecostal denominations operate a long list of colleges, universities and seminaries across the United states.
Pentecostalism is very much part of mainstream Christianity in America.
That's why a political attack from the Left on Palin based on Pentecostalism is likely to backfire in a big way. It's not that Pentecostals are politically monolithic - they aren't. But the average American voter is more likely to know, work with, live near or be friends with a Pentecostal Christian - indeed, to be one - than they are to know, work with, live near or be friends with someone who attends a church that features a pastor who blames America for 9/11 and delivers hate-filled race-baiting political rants from the pulpit.
As for Palin, she now attends a non-Pentecostal non-denominational church when she's back home in Alaska, the Wasilla Bible Church. The independent Bible church movement - autonomous churches that have no or very loose ties to any denomination or larger organization, often called "Bible churches" or "Bible fellowships" or "community churches," is a fast-growing part of American Christianity, though hard to quantify in numbers.
Palin says she is not a Pentecostal, just a "Bible-believing Christian," a phrase that Time magazine calls a "code" phrase. But it's not a code phrase at all. The dominant trend in American Christianity today is a movement away from denominationalism. Go to any of these new independent Bible churches, or even visit churches of various denominations that have downplayed their denominational ties, and you'll find the pews (or, more likely, padded chairs that can be stacked turn the "sanctuary" into a multi-purpose event hall) filled with people who came from various denomination backgrounds - "Bible-believing Christians."
—Bill Hobbs is author of Who Is Fred Thompson, a blog-centric look at the presidential candidate.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pentecostals
October 9, 2008 - 13:40 ET by GothampcLet's go over this one more time for those "slow on the uptake".
Pentecostals don't call infanticide by the name "choice".
Pentecostals are not going around saying "G-- D--- America".
Pentecostals try to stick with the original intent of our Founding Fathers.
Pentecostals don't want the government running everything from cradle to grave.
Pentecostals love their country and the freedom it holds and are thankful to the military for ensuring that we stay free and safe.
Why do liberals find these things so offensive?
well
October 9, 2008 - 13:43 ET by arkansaszippersIt's just annoying when people try to force their beliefs on you, because they think you need to be "saved."
what zip?
October 9, 2008 - 13:45 ET by candanceWhat does that have to do with this article? Do you believe Palin would use government to convert people?
Oh
October 9, 2008 - 13:51 ET by arkansaszippersOh, I was just replying to the comment, not the article. And no, I don't think Palin could use government to convert people, even if she somehow was that crazy, which I doubt she is.
huh?
October 9, 2008 - 13:56 ET by candanceThe first comment didn't have anything to do with converting people.
It sounds like you didn't have a constructive comment to make, so you decided to randomly complain about annoying evangelicals.
Actually
October 9, 2008 - 14:05 ET by arkansaszippersThe comment mentioned what people might find offensive; that was my answer. I don't see what is wrong with that.
so how do pentacostals
October 9, 2008 - 14:12 ET by TruthMongerso how do pentacostals "force their views" on people anyway - I'd love to find out!
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
hmmm, just as I thought -
October 9, 2008 - 14:18 ET by TruthMongerhmmm, just as I thought - another mis-informed and lying liberal chickensh*t
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
reply
October 9, 2008 - 14:23 ET by arkansaszipperssee below
A Point of View
October 9, 2008 - 14:05 ET by Gothampcarkansaszippers, I understand your comment. I've heard others criticize the overzealousness of Christians. But it's human nature when someone has something really great and they want to share it with other people. If you had a Protector, Advocate, Helper, Friend, Supporter and Healer available to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, wouldn't you want others to know about it?
How would you feel if I
October 9, 2008 - 14:07 ET by arkansaszippersHow would you feel if I felt that way about satan, and kept trying to tell you to buy into satan's plan? I mean if I honestly believed the same things about satan that you believe about jesus - wouldn't you start to get annoyed?
And this is just a hypothetical - I'm not a satan worshiper.
do these Christians follow
October 9, 2008 - 14:14 ET by TruthMongerdo these Christians follow you around everywhere and badger you 24/7 or something...?
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
hmmm, just as I thought -
October 9, 2008 - 14:18 ET by TruthMongerhmmm, just as I thought - another mis-informed and lying liberal chickensh*t
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
wow
October 9, 2008 - 14:21 ET by arkansaszippersDid you learn that type of language at church? I see god has really filled your soul with love and understanding.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Now where have I heard that before...
nah - learned it in prison
October 9, 2008 - 14:26 ET by TruthMongernah - learned it in prison ministry
still waiting for your answer................................
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
must be searching the
October 9, 2008 - 14:36 ET by TruthMongermust be searching the huffpo for a desperate response...
I'll give him a 9.5 artistic and technical on the fetal position - very nice form:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
ha
October 9, 2008 - 14:52 ET by arkansaszippersmore of that nice christian attitude I hear so much about. I need to get back to church!
no...
October 9, 2008 - 14:19 ET by arkansaszippersWhat bothers me is the arrogance that most religious people that I've come in contact with have about their beliefs. They are so sure that they're right, they think that it is their duty to show everybody else where they're wrong.
It's like the people who think religious views about things should be taught in science class - these same people would surely be outraged if part of their Sunday mass had to be set aside for a biology lesson.
It's just a sore issue with me I guess.
now we get somewhere so
October 9, 2008 - 14:27 ET by TruthMongernow we get somewhere
so does the arrogance of the global warming crowd trouble you at all?
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Or the arrogance of the pro
October 9, 2008 - 14:29 ET by MightyMouthOr the arrogance of the pro abortion crowd...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
amen brother:) two
October 9, 2008 - 14:31 ET by TruthMongeramen brother:)
two religions currently taught in science class
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
funny
October 9, 2008 - 14:36 ET by arkansaszippersFunny, I don't remember going over abortion in science class. What kind of school did you go to?
still waiting for your
October 9, 2008 - 14:40 ET by TruthMongerstill waiting for your answer dude
i can wait a LONG time
an "eternity in Heaven" you might say:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
dude
October 9, 2008 - 14:55 ET by arkansaszippersAnswer to what? Do you just sit here and click refresh over and over and over again? You know, some people have a life.
But seriously, what question are you referring to?
and still waiting - try
October 9, 2008 - 15:22 ET by TruthMongerand still waiting - try scrolling up - i don't have time to do this for you - I have a life you know
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
on the other hand
October 9, 2008 - 14:33 ET by arkansaszippersIt's not really the same issue, as global warming has some tangible physical qualities and data that can be studied scientifically, whereas religion depends on a personal belief. While there may be different sides to the global warming debate, there are studies that are being done. Plus, the whole save the earth thing bothers me because people keep preaching save the earth, when they really mean save us. I mean, the earth will be fine long after we're gone, and it seems a bit arrogant to think that we could have some deadly effect on something that has been around for millions of years.
Reliable data
October 9, 2008 - 14:39 ET by LionKing100 years of data. Do you think that 100 years ago that they could accurately record data as well as now? Even now, there are multiple problems with the methods of recording data. Finally, there is still NO link to climate change and man.
there's tons
October 9, 2008 - 14:42 ET by TruthMongerthere's tons more "tangible" evidence for Christianity than AGW - thousands of years of unchanging history and archeaology
but never mind - he can favor a few decades of questionable research instead - he runs with the smart crowd obviously:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Wow
October 9, 2008 - 14:47 ET by arkansaszippersWhat evidence for Christianity do you speak of, disregarding books written based on the beliefs of the author. You know, biased history.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
October 9, 2008 - 14:51 ET by TruthMongerhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/
would be great to get an answer to my question someday:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
huh?
October 9, 2008 - 15:00 ET by arkansaszippers"Things in the world are way complicated, so there must be a god." That isn't scientific evidence, that's a person's opinion.
And again, answer to what question?
this is what i read:
October 9, 2008 - 15:11 ET by TruthMonger"There is a God, leading atheist concludes - Philosopher says scientific evidence changed his mind"
dude - get your own education on this - like I said I was blind once too - there is plenty of scientific evidence on this - if you have your eyes open - it's your call...
and here's google for a start:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scientific+evidence+of+god&aq=2&oq=scientific+evidence
oh, and the question was about how these Christians are "forcing" their views on you - but never mind - I can already surmise the "proof" that you have on it...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Nobody is forcing their
October 9, 2008 - 15:21 ET by arkansaszippersNobody is forcing their views on me, it's just annoying that some people can be so closed minded to believe something so thoroughly that they stop asking questions. That's my main problem with the bible - it's too simple. It's just so neat and tied with a little bow. I don't believe that all of the answers of the universe are locked in a little book written centuries ago. It sounds like an Indiana Jones movie.
ya know, that's funny
October 9, 2008 - 15:27 ET by TruthMongerya know, that's funny because it's annoying to me that some people can be so closed minded to believe something so thoroughly that they stop asking questions. That's my main problem with anti-Bible crowd - They're too simple. Their rejection of the Bible (even though they've never read it - let alone studied it) is just so neat and tied with a little bow. I don't believe that all of the answers of the universe are locked in a science book written a couple of years ago and largely contradicting much of what science books said a few decades ago. It sounds like a Monty Python movie. Thanks for the answer btw...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Who said I stopped asking
October 9, 2008 - 15:37 ET by arkansaszippersWho said I stopped asking questions? That's the advantage of not being tied down to a specific religion: you can question all you want, and then decide for yourself. I just find if very convenient that I was lucky enough to be born in the country that - for the most part - believes the right religion! Talk about luck! Those heathens in other parts of the world don't know how screwed they are! Who cares about them though - they're probably evil anyway, right?
you've obviously stopped
October 9, 2008 - 15:47 ET by TruthMongeryou've obviously stopped asking questions about Christianity - so yourself a favor and get some courage man - crack open a Bible
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
That's the other thing that
October 9, 2008 - 15:52 ET by arkansaszippersThat's the other thing that bothers me: Christians always assume that anybody who doesn't believe in the bible must not have read it. As if it's too great for anybody not to believe. And if they read it and don't believe it, they must just be dumb, or inherently evil.
It's like if you said you didn't like the movie "The Matrix," and I said that you must not have understood it. That's the arrogance I'm talking about.
Yes, I get that
October 9, 2008 - 14:44 ET by arkansaszippersI'm pointing to the fact that data does exist, and can be studied, and will continue to be studied going forward. The existence or non-existence of an all powerful being cannot. Which is why science is not at odds with religion, but separate from it.
see above - it can be (and
October 9, 2008 - 14:46 ET by TruthMongersee above - it can be (and has been) studied scientifically - tons of Christian scientists (and non-Christian) see scientific evidence for a supreme being all over the place
i was blind once too - but now I see...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
really?
October 9, 2008 - 14:50 ET by arkansaszippersWhat scientific evidence are you talking about? Do you know about the scientific method?
And again, I'm not arguing against the existence of a higher being - I'm just saying it can't be proven or disproven scientifically.
nothing can ever be
October 9, 2008 - 14:53 ET by TruthMongernothing can ever be "proven"
all science is taken on faith - just like religion
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bill-hobbs/2008/10/09/time-tries-gin-pentecostal-problem-palin#comment-741633
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
I'm speechless
October 9, 2008 - 15:06 ET by arkansaszippersHow is science at all like religion? You aren't even making any sense anymore. And as I said before, some guy's opinion about the complexities of DNA is not the same as scientific evidence.
Here, this might help clarify:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
but some guys opinion on
October 9, 2008 - 15:18 ET by TruthMongerbut some guys opinion on global warming is plenty of scientific evidence - i get it - and so i must admit you sure do make a lot of sense
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
this is crazy
October 9, 2008 - 15:26 ET by arkansaszippersHow is data based on the temperature of the earth an opinion? There may be different ways of interpreting it, but it is physical data. So in that way it differs from the realm of religious belief. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
I'll tell you how, az
October 9, 2008 - 15:33 ET by BlondeFirst of all, the temperature of the earth prior to about a hundred years ago is all opinion. De facto....we weren't measuring then.
Secondly, many of the data collection points are currently being "adjusted".....did you know that (thermometer is in a parking lot...well we'll adjust it bu such and so)? So again, it's not empirical data, it's opinion.
I'd suggest you read the archives here...Noel does great Global Warming blogs, there are numerous posters here who have scientific backgrounds who shoot down every single conjecture the warmers make.
Next?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I'm not arguing the quality
October 9, 2008 - 15:41 ET by arkansaszippersI'm not arguing the quality of the data, just that collection of data is possible.
Do you agree that data can be collected and studied?
Christian data
October 9, 2008 - 15:45 ET by TruthMongerChristian data collection:
http://www.digbible.org/links.html
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
In the here and now
October 9, 2008 - 15:45 ET by BlondeAh, but you are arguing the quality of the data when you say it's a fact....it's not, as I outlined above.
The warmers even have to adjust the current data to fit their model and assumptions.
It's just bad science.
Data can be collected in the here and now, but once someone starts to "adjust"....throw it out, it's useless.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
You don't understand what
October 9, 2008 - 15:49 ET by arkansaszippersYou don't understand what I'm trying to say. I don't care one way or another if global warming is real, or if we caused it, or anything. My point was that the temperature of the earth is something that can be studied scientifically, whereas the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being is not.
az...let me refer you to the archives again
October 9, 2008 - 15:58 ET by BlondeWe have a poster here, who is a physicist, hydrodyneDM. He posted a great forum topic on this subject, science vs. religion, and it was weighed in upon by some pretty heavy theologians and scientists here.
And it wasn't really about warming either. If I understand what you're getting at, that measurements are "real"....but again, real only in your reality.
You might want to go read that forum topic, it will give you some insights. Not only into the true meaning of the basic argument, but into the POV's of many of the posters here.
If hDM shows up here any time soon, I'll get the link from him and post it for you. It's really fascinating stuff....and you'll get alot more out of it than any class you could find at any university in the country.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Here's the link
October 9, 2008 - 22:19 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Here's the link to that forum topic.
(Thanks for remembering it.)
Hey HdM
October 9, 2008 - 22:25 ET by BlondeThat was some of the best stuff I've ever read.
I'm going to file it off...I was being lazy today.
I don't know why I even bother with these newbie posters....but sometimes they turn out okay.
Good to see you here, and thanks for the link!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hey Blonde, Thanks again
October 9, 2008 - 22:41 ET by hydrodynDMHey Blonde,
Thanks again for even thinking of it.
It looked to me like zippers was trying to engage in an honest and respectful discussion so I give him credit for that.
Too bad I was in the middle of class when this debate was going on - I would have jumped right in :)
exactly - there are
October 9, 2008 - 15:44 ET by TruthMongerexactly - there are different ways of interpreting it - thank-you - now we are getting somewhere
now if you can just seperate yourself from the arrogance that your interpretions are the only truthful conclusions in the history of mankind i believe you could make even further progress here
and what is so hard not to understand about all of the archeological data (ie PHYSICAL) supporting Christianity?
http://www.digbible.org/links.html
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
exactly - data exists.
October 9, 2008 - 15:46 ET by arkansaszippersexactly - data exists. There is no data to study that proves or disproves god. There is nothing wrong with a belief system, I just don't think it falls into the realm of science.
You haven't named any archiological data yet that proves christianity.
really, so the existance of
October 9, 2008 - 15:09 ET by mandrakereally, so the existance of nuclear weapons in no way 'proves' Einstien's scientific theories?
sorry - but no:) it's
October 9, 2008 - 15:16 ET by TruthMongersorry - but no:)
it's good evidence tho
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
WOW
October 9, 2008 - 15:17 ET by arkansaszippersWOW!!! Good answer!
You just blew me away!
free of charge too:)! happy
October 9, 2008 - 15:20 ET by TruthMongerfree of charge too:)! happy to help...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Zipp,The freedom the Christianity, has given the world Science.
October 9, 2008 - 15:34 ET by upcountrywaterAzip, try a book: WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTANITY
D’Souza
reveals:
Why
Christianity explains the universe, and
our origins, better than atheism does
Why
Christianity and science are not
irreconcilable, but science and atheism
might be
Why
the alleged sins of Christianity—the
Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo
affair—are vastly overblown
Why
atheism is a demonstrably dangerous
creed—and a cowardly one
Why
evolution does not threaten Christian
belief
Why
atheists fear the Big Bang theory
Why
Christianity is the ultimate defense of
man’s free will
Why
ultimately you can’t have Western
civilization—and all we value from
it—without the Christianity that gave it
birth
How does not believing in
October 9, 2008 - 15:43 ET by arkansaszippersHow does not believing in god make someone dangerous?
Keep thrashing and misdirecting az
October 9, 2008 - 15:50 ET by BlondeIt's a pitiful debate tactic.
Where on earth did that question come from?
You get your arguments whipped up one side and down the other...so you quickly abandon them and hop to a new topic.
That's the oldest liberal tactic around here, but let me give you a clue (I'm feeling generous today)....no one here buys it for a minute.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Did you even read what I
October 9, 2008 - 15:57 ET by arkansaszippersDid you even read what I was replying to:
Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
That was a direct question regarding the comment I was replying to. Just because I have different opinions doesn't mean I'm trying to be tricky. And just because I have different beliefs than some doesn't mean I'm getting "whipped."
No, you didn't understand what upc wrote
October 9, 2008 - 16:04 ET by BlondeHe was recommending a book that outlined various concepts about Christianity.
You spun the general statement about atheism (as a chapter header) from the general to the specific....no one person's belief(s) is inherently dangerous...which is the question you attempted to get upc to answer.
Secondly, UPC didn't even MAKE that assertion. Yet you asked him to defend it.
Bad tactic.
Of course, if he chooses to, that's up to him.
Thrash on, though....I'm done trying to reason with you for today, you're too obstinate to learn. You've made a perfect ninny out of yourself. Carry on.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
wow
October 9, 2008 - 16:09 ET by arkansaszippersThere's no need to be disrespectful. Is that something they teach in church?
And I'm sorry if I didn't debate according to your rules. I've never read the book, but apparently UPC has. The chapter header was confusing to me, so I was just asking a question. I'm sorry for not clarifying.
azipp, I have one word for ya: COMMIES
October 9, 2008 - 15:58 ET by upcountrywater100 million murdered, yea yea it's just a statistic...
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
ok
October 9, 2008 - 16:01 ET by arkansaszippersWhat if I said I didn't believe in the bible - would that make me dangerous?
zip, Just a book ,that has the most copies printed on EARTH.
October 9, 2008 - 16:15 ET by upcountrywaterU don't believe ANY of the information inside?
CLIMATE CRISIS
0bama sez, he'd will sit down with this guy...
IranianUranium
Yes, and Britney Spears
October 9, 2008 - 16:26 ET by arkansaszippersYes, and Britney Spears sold millions of records worldwide. What does that say about human nature?
Yours was a pugilistic response.
October 9, 2008 - 16:48 ET by Mike BrattonChristianity has had the most societal influence of any belief system in the history of the planet. While I wouldn't make an appeal to popularity, the spread of Christianity is due to its effectiveness and depth.
Christianity has answers; atheism, on the other hand, has zip.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
We've seen a great example of that in Obama.
October 9, 2008 - 16:04 ET by Mike BrattonAs someone who actively, specifically denies the fundamentals of Christianity, yet hangs a "Christian" label on himself, Obama demonstrates himself as patently untrustworthy--as someone whose word cannot be believed.
I don't know how you feel, but untrustworthy people in positions of power are more than a bit dangerous.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
TruthMonger, I agree with
October 9, 2008 - 22:36 ET by hydrodynDMTruthMonger,
I agree with you that both scientific and theological beliefs are ultimately based on some sort of faith - but you have to admit that the kinds of things taken as "true" (not "proven", of course) differ in their character between these two areas of study.
Theology has the potential to accept a wider class of statements as true than science since science can't incorporate supernatural agents as a result of its methodology.
Regarding your comment above this one, yes many (if not most - at least in my personal experience) scientists are people of faith and they incorporate their scientific beliefs into that faith. However, that isn't the same as suggesting that they have managed to somehow show scientifically that their faith is true. Science doesn't talk about supernatural agents, and asserting the existence of God is doing just that.
apples and oranges
October 9, 2008 - 15:07 ET by candanceYou can't fairly compare public schools to private church service. The government takes my money and hires teachers to tell my children that my family values are bogus. The government says it remains "neutral" on the issue of religion but then it pushes atheism at every turn.
Christians don't want creationism forced onto students. We simply want teachers to allow discussion on all sides and acknowledge that religious children have a right to disagree with evolution.
as i said
October 9, 2008 - 15:14 ET by arkansaszippersAs I said before, science and religion are also "apples and oranges." Teaching evolution in a science class in no way teaches children that god doesn't exist. And how does the government push atheism on anybody?
he's died in the wool cd -
October 9, 2008 - 15:19 ET by TruthMongerhe's died in the wool cd - eyes wide shut
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
huh
October 9, 2008 - 15:23 ET by arkansaszippersDo you have any intelligent remarks, or just emotionally based insults?
Then you must be as steamed
October 9, 2008 - 14:30 ET by chambodiaThen you must be as steamed as the rest of us that the liberal media is trying to strong arm us into socialism.
conservative icons
literally forcing their
October 9, 2008 - 14:32 ET by TruthMongerliterally forcing their view on us via the government
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Because
October 10, 2008 - 09:29 ET by misterbee241Because they're liberals and everything you stated is anathema to them.
Palin's church
October 9, 2008 - 13:44 ET by candanceI actually had someone tell me the other day that they's scared to death of Palin getting control of the White House because she might use her powers to usher in the apocalypse. I'm not joking.
Time is certainly not afraid of losing any Pentecostal readers because I don't any Pentecostals who actually read it.
Research
October 9, 2008 - 13:58 ET by Gothampccandance, tell that person to research the 12th Imam and Iran. It's not Christians forcing the apocalypse.
Candance... That's kind
October 9, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Clear thinkerCandance...
That's kind of funny if you think about it. Liberals claim she is unqualified to do anything, yet she has the power to bring on the apocalypse? If she's that darn powerful, I want her on my side!
Sarahs Shared Geneology Explains Her Attraction.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
MSM Pentecostal expert comments
October 9, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe MSM will find a worshipper speaking in tongues, and hire a 'Pentecostal Expert' to interpret what she's saying:
"Yep, she just said, 'No no no. Not G*d bless America, G*d damn America.'
See? It's a Christian thing and Palin endorses. Why, Palin would feel right at home in Obama's former church!
Back to you in the studio."
rofl mica
October 9, 2008 - 13:46 ET by candanceAn expert who can "interpret" speaking in tongues! I'm surprised they haven't tried that already.
Candance
October 9, 2008 - 14:18 ET by Mica the MagnificentI'm surprised too, candance.
I can bring home the moose (da da da da da) fry it up in a pan (da da da da da) and never ever ever let you forget you're a man, cause I'm a wo-man w-o-m-a-n. I'll say it again - - - - Hillary humming to herself
(just kidding)
Thanx for the article
October 9, 2008 - 14:20 ET by timrfrench61Thanx for the good detail here.
Funny that Time says "Bible-Believing Christian" is a code word. Do they mean "Political code word" or "religious code word" (more of a secret handshake that people can identify each other at the christian book rounder next to the candy case at the restaurant cash register)?
I seriously ask as, Carter used the "Born Again" code word to get elected in the 70s (when I was in a christian high school). Some of the pentecostals I went to school with at the time (it was about 50/50 pentecostal/conservative baptist) were just hot on him because of the use of code words "Born Again". "Born Again" is not a phrase I throw around but it was what I always considered myself as being (in my own head, seeing as it's Jesus's words (John Chapter 3)).
See I thought the new code word was "Committed Christian", a phrase Obama has tossed around to limited traction as far as I'm aware. I work on an evangelism committee at church and our rep from Outreach (a christian marketing services company) told us (before this) that "Committed Christian" is the more likely phrase in the Latino community over "Born Again" based upon target studies (yes: evangelism and marketing share alot of the same tools).
My point: Obama was tossing around code words ("Committed Christian") long before Palin was on the scene, essentially trying to pull a Carter. Oh: and the hip-hop sensibilities are the Playboy interview...
Cracking the code
October 9, 2008 - 16:12 ET by Mike BrattonWith Carter, that was the pre-Internet era, which allowed him to snow people into thinking he was a Christian. It was only in recent years that we've heard him say things that demonstrate his antipathy to the Christian faith.
With regard to Obama, we have from his own words pre-election proof that he is neither "committed" nor "born again."
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Overzealous Christians!!
October 9, 2008 - 21:04 ET by BlueCat57What about overzealous liberals. Talk about someone wanting to push their belief system on others you need not look further than a liberal. Relativism, socialism, and about a dozen other isms. Why can't we all just get along?
There are Pentecostals in "mainstream" churches too
October 9, 2008 - 22:53 ET by nkviking75Starting in the 70's there were "Holy Spirit movements" in non-Pentecostal churches like the Catholic Church and Lutheranism. These people were Pentecostal, yet chose to remain with their denominations hoping to share their experiences and bringing others along with them. So it's not just denominations like the A/G. It's scattered throughout Christendom.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.