• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

SCC and Trinity Western University

Just a point of clarification - evangelist.

I know that people round here are concerned, often to the point of adamancy, about the definition of words.  Personally this is one that is a pet peeve of mine.

I continue in my status as a lapsed presbyterian, raised by strict(ish) Presbyterians, but now married to a Roman Catholic.

When I was going to church on a regular basis, and attending Sunday School, I was raised to be aware of the distinctions among all the many branches of Christianity. 

One distinction was evangelism.

Evangelism is actually an ancient word.  It has a Greek origin and was commonly used by the hellenic Christians as a noun, as in John the Evangel, or the Evangelist.  It meant the bearer of the Good News, specifically, in their terms, about Christ.

In the mid nineteenth century, during one of the periodic Awakenings that characterized the development of the protestant churches, it became popular as both a term and practice among certain churches.  Arguably it started with Congregationalists, whose political organization within their congregations permits local flexibility in belief,  and spread from there through other Churches like the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians.  Eventually there were even evangelical Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics (occasionally called Charismatics).

The defining difference of the evangelical of any church was the belief in the need to proselytize, to go out and spread the good news, to convert, to redeem, to save.

This driving force was the driving force that encouraged other Churches to encourage their own evangelists.  They needed to compete to keep bums in the seats.  Church roofs need to be repaired from time to time.

Now, my Grandfather, strict Scots Presbyterian, Elder of the Kirk and Member of the Kirk Session .... and Mason ..... was wont to offer "Beware of the man with the Bible bigger than his pocket".  Evangelists didn't just wear their religion on their sleeves they carried their Bibles in public and referenced them at the drop of a hat.

Grampa, was of the firm conviction that religion was a personal thing.  He kept his Bible at home.  He never discussed his religion outside the home.  He never tried to convert anyone to his beliefs.

On the other hand he lived his beliefs and his personal understanding of his religion, as he interpreted it from his own reading of the Bible, formed those beliefs.

He was only too well aware, having grown up in the west of Scotland, of the real consequences of religious strife.  The Killing Times, when the government forces rode down and killed dissenters from the established church (the Episcopal Church of Scotland) and the Highland Host, the billeting of Catholic Highlanders on Presbyterian Lowlanders (equivalent in time and function to Louis XIV's anti-Huguenot Dragonnades) were not just folk memories.  They were as real as yesterday.  Those memories bought a toleration of the other of a different type.  Toleration based on keeping religion out of the public square - and the Evangelicals threatened to upset that working principle.

As an aside - that working principle was at the core of the Masonic belief: that any man of any religion could be a Mason.  The fact that some Churches forbade their members from joining the Masons was immaterial to whether or not the Masons were an open society.  The only thing my Grandfather's Masons could not accept was an Atheist, unlike the European Masons.  His Masons would only accept someone who subordinated themselves to some understanding of a Higher Power.

What am I trying to say?

Not all Protestants are Evangelicals.  Not all Evangelicals are Protestants.  In fact not all evangelicals are even Christian or particularly god-fearing.

Most of the most fervent evangelicals, proselytizers, that I encounter these days are not Protestants, largely a dying array of sects, but are in fact socialists, atheists, environmentalists and Muslims.  They seem to be the people most interested in spreading the good news, converting me, redeeming me, saving me, invading the public square with their beliefs.



By the way Grampa was also the product of the Ayrshire coal mines.  His family were actively engaged with Keir Hardie in forming the Labour Party and he was a lifelong supporter of the South Ayrshire Labour Party.  And he treated his political membership exactly the same way he treated his church and masonic associations.  Circumspectly and privately.

 
Chris Pook said:
Just a point of clarification - evangelist.

I know that people round here are concerned, often to the point of adamancy, about the definition of words.  Personally this is one that is a pet peeve of mine.

I continue in my status as a lapsed presbyterian, raised by strict(ish) Presbyterians, but now married to a Roman Catholic.

When I was going to church on a regular basis, and attending Sunday School, I was raised to be aware of the distinctions among all the many branches of Christianity. 

One distinction was evangelism.

Evangelism is actually an ancient word.  It has a Greek origin and was commonly used by the hellenic Christians as a noun, as in John the Evangel, or the Evangelist.  It meant the bearer of the Good News, specifically, in their terms, about Christ.

In the mid nineteenth century, during one of the periodic Awakenings that characterized the development of the protestant churches, it became popular as both a term and practice among certain churches.  Arguably it started with Congregationalists, whose political organization within their congregations permits local flexibility in belief,  and spread from there through other Churches like the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians.  Eventually there were even evangelical Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics (occasionally called Charismatics).

The defining difference of the evangelical of any church was the belief in the need to proselytize, to go out and spread the good news, to convert, to redeem, to save.

This driving force was the driving force that encouraged other Churches to encourage their own evangelists.  They needed to compete to keep bums in the seats.  Church roofs need to be repaired from time to time.

Now, my Grandfather, strict Scots Presbyterian, Elder of the Kirk and Member of the Kirk Session .... and Mason ..... was wont to offer "Beware of the man with the Bible bigger than his pocket".  Evangelists didn't just wear their religion on their sleeves they carried their Bibles in public and referenced them at the drop of a hat.

Grampa, was of the firm conviction that religion was a personal thing.  He kept his Bible at home.  He never discussed his religion outside the home.  He never tried to convert anyone to his beliefs.

On the other hand he lived his beliefs and his personal understanding of his religion, as he interpreted it from his own reading of the Bible, formed those beliefs.

He was only too well aware, having grown up in the west of Scotland, of the real consequences of religious strife.  The Killing Times, when the government forces rode down and killed dissenters from the established church (the Episcopal Church of Scotland) and the Highland Host, the billeting of Catholic Highlanders on Presbyterian Lowlanders (equivalent in time and function to Louis XIV's anti-Huguenot Dragonnades) were not just folk memories.  They were as real as yesterday.  Those memories bought a toleration of the other of a different type.  Toleration based on keeping religion out of the public square - and the Evangelicals threatened to upset that working principle.

As an aside - that working principle was at the core of the Masonic belief: that any man of any religion could be a Mason.  The fact that some Churches forbade their members from joining the Masons was immaterial to whether or not the Masons were an open society.  The only thing my Grandfather's Masons could not accept was an Atheist, unlike the European Masons.  His Masons would only accept someone who subordinated themselves to some understanding of a Higher Power.

What am I trying to say?

Not all Protestants are Evangelicals.  Not all Evangelicals are Protestants.  In fact not all evangelicals are even Christian or particularly god-fearing.

Most of the most fervent evangelicals, proselytizers, that I encounter these days are not Protestants, largely a dying array of sects, but are in fact socialists, atheists, environmentalists and Muslims.  They seem to be the people most interested in spreading the good news, converting me, redeeming me, saving me, invading the public square with their beliefs.



By the way Grampa was also the product of the Ayrshire coal mines.  His family were actively engaged with Keir Hardie in forming the Labour Party and he was a lifelong supporter of the South Ayrshire Labour Party.  And he treated his political membership exactly the same way he treated his church and masonic associations.  Circumspectly and privately.

Good post Chris and I mostly agree with it. I think that I would have liked your Grampa had we met.

I do take a small turn away from the contention that "the most fervent evangelicals, proselytizers, that I encounter these days are not Protestants,. . . but are in fact . . . atheists, . . .".

I don't disagree that there are in fact some atheists that are fervent in their beliefs and push them relentlessly. The vast majority, like me, however, believe in live and let live. What we react strongly to isn't so much that some people want to believe in a spiritual superior being but the fact that they insist that the moral strictures that they have had handed down to them through whatever gospel that they follow must be adopted by everyone in their society. The issues of abortion and discrimination (if not violence) against homosexuals comes immediately to mind.

For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in abortions then don't have them. But why deny others? Similarly, society is full of minorities. Every individual, whether they be of a different race, nationality, sex or sexual orientation, is a human being and deserves to be treated with the same respect and dignity. To single one or another class out for hate or discrimination or oppression  is simply wrong. The fact that such discrimination or oppression is permitted by some archaic sheepherder's interpretation of what some deity told him in a dream several millennia ago doesn't make it right.

Please don't mix up the very real impact that the religious evangelical movements have through their control of legislators to directly and indirectly push their beliefs on others with that of the sharp tongued atheists who challenge their beliefs. Personally I believe that the country's constitution should require that the state be secular but allow every individual to practice whatever religious beliefs they want so long as it harms no other individual.

:cheers:
 
FJAG....

You are entitled to your beliefs.  But others believe differently..... and thus: Democracy and parliaments.  ;)  :cheers:
 
Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.

By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.

Just point of order, that's all.  ;D

Though, I have described myself as a Radical Atheist, like Douglas Adams before me. Just so there are no doubts.  :nod:
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.

By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.

Just point of order, that's all.  ;D

Though, I have described myself as a Radical Atheist, like Douglas Adams before me. Just so there are no doubts.  :nod:

I would agree, but then there are those that I would call anti-theists. They don't believe, and they want you to not believe. A true atheist doesn't care if you believe or not.
 
Chris Pook said:
FJAG....

You are entitled to your beliefs.  But others believe differently..... and thus: Democracy and parliaments.  ;)  :cheers:

And thus: Tyranny of the Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Here's where I actually agree with Ayn Rand who "wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual"

Democracy fails miserably when the mass of the electorate is driven by emotion rather than common sense. Of course, others may believe differently . . .

:cheers:

 
FJAG said:
And thus: Tyranny of the Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Here's where I actually agree with Ayn Rand who "wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual"

Democracy fails miserably when the mass of the electorate is driven by emotion rather than common sense. Of course, others may believe differently . . .

:cheers:

Which results in the least amount of blood in the streets?  Tyranny of the Majority?  Or Tyranny of a Minority?  I don't know the answer but I would suggest that one has a better track record than the other.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.

By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.

Just point of order, that's all.  ;D

Though, I have described myself as a Radical Atheist, like Douglas Adams before me. Just so there are no doubts.  :nod:

Respectfully - an a-theist is the opposite to a theist.  A theist is one that believes in a god, any god.  An a-theist is one that believes in the absence of god, any god.

An a-gnostic "believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The commonality is "belief". 

Nobody knows anything for sure.  Unless they are sure in their belief.

Or as some character currently living the High-Life in Washington put it on his Facebook page :  "Credo ergo est"

I believe therefore it is.

Atheists, and agnostics, can proselytize.
 
>For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in abortions then don't have them. But why deny others?

The answer to the question lies in switching from your perspective to theirs: "For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in murder then don't [commit] them. But why deny others?"
 
Brad Sallows said:
>For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in abortions then don't have them. But why deny others?

The answer to the question lies in switching from your perspective to theirs: "For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in murder then don't [commit] them. But why deny others?"

That's a value-loaded judgment from the "pro-life" side as to whether or not an abortion is equivalent to murder.

Currently in Canada 4 out of 5 people support abortions. https://globalnews.ca/news/3290006/support-for-abortion-rights-strong-in-canada-but-poll-shows-we-are-middle-of-the-pack-globally/

Similarly, 4 out of 5 people in the US support abortions in any circumstance or in some circumstances. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx. Only some 20% say it should be illegal in all circumstances yet that 20% is driving the agenda in many States' legislatures.

I think it's virtually unanimous that everyone considers murder illegal. Not so abortions. IMHO before a legislature creates laws making a certain act illegal, (or a legal act inaccessible) there should be a fairly general and widely accepted consensus that the act has such a high element of moral blameworthiness attached to it that it deserves penal sanctioning or eradication by the state. That consensus does not exist in either Canada or the US.

The fact that I can see their side of the argument does not mean that they should have their way in it.

[cheers]
 
I think Brad was referencing the "general" and not the "particular".

 
Society has decided that murder is wrong; murder being the taking of a life for reasons other than self-defence, protection of family and of country.  By the dictionary it is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.  Even when a killing could be considered justified a person can still be committing murder if the killing is morally reprehensible and brutal.  With the exception of the 'morning after pill' abortion is  a brutal way to end a life.  If the methods used in abortion were used to administer the death penalty the outcry would be overwhelming.  Just because 80 or even 99% of the population have no problem with the thought of abortion does not change what abortion is i.e. the ending of another life.  We, society, have allowed women to chose to commit murder by accepting the notion that the child isn't a 'life' until the birth actually occurs.  But for the accident of a few months we are in actuality legalising infanticide.  Meanwhile the same folks that are agitating for unlimited abortion are lobbying against the fur trade, blocking the seal hunt, boycotting dog and horse races and preventing laboratories from using rats to help in the development of medicines.  Can you say HYPOCRITE.
 
YZT580 said:
Society has decided that murder is wrong; murder being the taking of a life for reasons other than self-defence, protection of family and of country.  By the dictionary it is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.  Even when a killing could be considered justified a person can still be committing murder if the killing is morally reprehensible and brutal.  With the exception of the 'morning after pill' abortion is  a brutal way to end a life.  If the methods used in abortion were used to administer the death penalty the outcry would be overwhelming.  Just because 80 or even 99% of the population have no problem with the thought of abortion does not change what abortion is i.e. the ending of another life.  We, society, have allowed women to chose to commit murder by accepting the notion that the child isn't a 'life' until the birth actually occurs.  But for the accident of a few months we are in actuality legalising infanticide.  Meanwhile the same folks that are agitating for unlimited abortion are lobbying against the fur trade, blocking the seal hunt, boycotting dog and horse races and preventing laboratories from using rats to help in the development of medicines.  Can you say HYPOCRITE.

You're mistaking murder (culpable homicide) with non-culpable homicide.  Canadian law makes legal termination of pregnancy up to the point of birth.  Committing a legal act, by definition, precludes in Canada an abortion from being murder.

G2G
 
So, as an opponent of abortion (though I note you don't differentiate between surgical and medical abortions), I assume you're also a strong proponent of sex ed and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.

By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.

Just point of order, that's all.  ;D

Though, I have described myself as a Radical Atheist, like Douglas Adams before me. Just so there are no doubts.  :nod:

Atheism is a belief and it's followers worship at the alter of disbelief. Amusing to think a grain of sand understands the universe to rule out such things. Atheism requires far to much belief in the righteous of their convictions for me. To give them their due, they are generally less fervent than Vegans...  8)
 
Actually, I believe that Canadian law says nothing about abortion.  When they made the Morgantalier (forgive my spelling) ruling they punted it back to parliament with the notion that the existing law was no good so come up with a better one.  Since then, parliament has ignored the issue.  We have no law and therefore no guidance whatsoever and we have yet to come up with a definition of when life begins. If I chose to murder a pregnant woman I will face one charge only of first or second degree murder whilst the infant is ignored even if he/she too is killed as a result.
 
YZT580 said:
Actually, I believe that Canadian law says nothing about abortion.  When they made the Morgantalier (forgive my spelling) ruling they punted it back to parliament with the notion that the existing law was no good so come up with a better one.  Since then, parliament has ignored the issue.  We have no law and therefore no guidance whatsoever and we have yet to come up with a definition of when life begins. If I chose to murder a pregnant woman I will face one charge only of first or second degree murder whilst the infant is ignored even if he/she too is killed as a result.

You're wrong on a number of counts.

For a fuller overview of the topic see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

In short, parliament did try to implement abortion based criminal code provisions but failed. Once that became clear the government assured through the Canada Health Act that all provincial health care support for publicly funded abortions were equally accessible. Finally, there is no shortage of guidance within the medical community and the legal one as to what is or isn't legal and in particular the acceptance by the SCC of the common law  "born alive rule" and the holding that a fetus had no legal status as a person.

While there are always niche arguments and issues that need to be addressed from time-to-time there are no overarching uncertainties except in the minds of the small minority of people who do not want the law to be what as it is.

[cheers]
 
YZT580 said:
Actually, I believe that Canadian law says nothing about abortion.  When they made the Morgantalier (forgive my spelling) ruling they punted it back to parliament with the notion that the existing law was no good so come up with a better one.  Since then, parliament has ignored the issue.  We have no law and therefore no guidance whatsoever and we have yet to come up with a definition of when life begins. If I chose to murder a pregnant woman I will face one charge only of first or second degree murder whilst the infant is ignored even if he/she too is killed as a result.

Abortion is covered by Canadian law, but in administration - the Canadian Health Act, RSC 1985 C-6. That is precisely the point about abortion in Canada.  It is not specified by the Criminal Code of Canada as a culpable-homicide, so it is not murder...nor is it illegal. 

G2G
 
The law on the beginning of life is legally "neat", but that is about it. It's based on from what I can tell rulings going back 300 years. I read a paper a few years on how the proliferation of ultra scans are are redefining fetus development, there is significant scientific basis to base the beginning of life at some point during the fetus development. However there appears to be no political or legal will to go there. It would open up a large box of worms, since you have two sets of competing rights within the same body and it would also mean that the biological father is on the hook for childcare and support during pregnancy. I suspect that the majority of Canadians given all the facts would settle on abortions being allowed in the early stages, but none at the later stages, except in dire circumstances. A law like that would not make the extremists on either side of the debate happy, but would suit the majority.     
 
>That's a value-loaded judgment from the "pro-life" side as to whether or not an abortion is equivalent to murder.

It's not "value loading", it's calling it how they see it.  "Murder" has a moral meaning as well as a legal one; I refer to the former.  If abortion isn't murder, there isn't really a reason to object to it; people object on the grounds that it is a taking of human (a person's) life.  As for law, everything defined in law is arbitrary - it may be grounded on some sort of moral or other principle, but ultimately we can define anything we want, any way we want, in law.  What the criminal code has to say is beside the point when discussing the issue in basic moral terms.
 
Back
Top