Why are so many evangelicals conservative politically?

[Danmark]

"White evangelical Protestants are roughly five times more likely to agree with the Tea Party movement than to disagree with it...."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/2 ... filiation/
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/02/23/tea- ... -religion/

Why?
Why should a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ be so conservative politically and economically? Why should the 'soldiers of Christ' be so pro big business and be lackey's for the 1% of Americans that own 40 or 50% of the Country's wealth? Why are they so hostile to social programs designed to help the poor and provide basic health coverage?

[East of Eden]

Around about 7billion people blow your argument clean out of the water. 5 doesn't even count as a percentage of 7billion. You lose.

As the president of the APA said, even one case of a changed sexual orientation destroys the idea that sex attraction is immutable. I could post such testimonies all day long, there are a lot more than five.

[East of Eden]

Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila [sic] are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.

What is your evidence for these statements? I'm aware that one may inherit a predisposition for more or less susceptibility to alcohol abuse, but not alcoholism itself.

What is the difference between a predisposition for alcohol abuse and the resulting alcoholism?

At any rate, alcohol dependence and pedophilia are recognized by the DSM as disorders; homosexuality is not.

No doubt due to high pressure tactics by the gay lobby.

There simply is nothing dysfunctional about homosexuality, except in the context of a rigid, antiquated, science denying religious fundamentalism that finds moral evil in what nature produces.

Nature also produces all kinds of deformaties including cancer and a bent towards alcholism and pedophilia. And there is nothing more rigid and science denying than the gay lobby and its soldiers, who tolerate no criticism of their perverted lifestyle.

[otseng]

who tolerate no criticism of their perverted lifestyle.

Moderator Comment

You are free to be critical, but using the term perverted would be too contentious.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[10CC]

Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila [sic] are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.

What is your evidence for these statements? I'm aware that one may inherit a predisposition for more or less susceptibility to alcohol abuse, but not alcoholism itself. At any rate, alcohol dependence and pedophilia are recognized by the DSM as disorders; homosexuality is not.

There simply is nothing dysfunctional about homosexuality, except in the context of a rigid, antiquated, science denying religious fundamentalism that finds moral evil in what nature produces.

The bible never ever condemns paedophilia. Is the rape of children not worth mention by your god?

My apologies Danmark, this comment should not have been directed at you, my mistake.

[East of Eden]

Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila [sic] are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.

What is your evidence for these statements? I'm aware that one may inherit a predisposition for more or less susceptibility to alcohol abuse, but not alcoholism itself. At any rate, alcohol dependence and pedophilia are recognized by the DSM as disorders; homosexuality is not.

There simply is nothing dysfunctional about homosexuality, except in the context of a rigid, antiquated, science denying religious fundamentalism that finds moral evil in what nature produces.

The bible never ever condemns paedophilia. Is the rape of children not worth mention by your god?

My apologies Danmark, this comment should not have been directed at you, my mistake.

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

[10CC]

Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila [sic] are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.

What is your evidence for these statements? I'm aware that one may inherit a predisposition for more or less susceptibility to alcohol abuse, but not alcoholism itself. At any rate, alcohol dependence and pedophilia are recognized by the DSM as disorders; homosexuality is not.

There simply is nothing dysfunctional about homosexuality, except in the context of a rigid, antiquated, science denying religious fundamentalism that finds moral evil in what nature produces.

The bible never ever condemns paedophilia. Is the rape of children not worth mention by your god?

My apologies Danmark, this comment should not have been directed at you, my mistake.

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

I said the bible and the jewish bit (OT) does indeed condemn homosexuality but is completely silent on the practice of paedophilia common in those times.

[Danmark]

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

Amazing! You reflect the same absurd view that Iranian President Ahmadinejad voiced when he claimed, “In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."

Are you seriously claiming that in Jesus' time in Palestine there were no homosexuals? Only if there were none could there be no issue of this 'moral evil' as you put it.

[East of Eden]

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

Amazing! You reflect the same absurd view that Iranian President Ahmadinejad voiced when he claimed, “In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."

I'm sure they do have people with same-sex attraction, they don't have homosexuals flaunting their behavior in the street.

Are you seriously claiming that in Jesus' time in Palestine there were no homosexuals?

Never said that. I'm sure there were some with same-sex attraction, but they followed God's commands and didn't act those feelings out. That used to be known as a moral education.

Only if there were none could there be no issue of this 'moral evil' as you put it.

I don't put it this way, God does in the Bible.

[10CC]

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

Amazing! You reflect the same absurd view that Iranian President Ahmadinejad voiced when he claimed, “In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."

I'm sure they do have people with same-sex attraction, they don't have homosexuals flaunting their behavior in the street.

Are you seriously claiming that in Jesus' time in Palestine there were no homosexuals?

Never said that. I'm sure there were some with same-sex attraction, but they followed God's commands and didn't act those feelings out. That used to be known as a moral education.

Only if there were none could there be no issue of this 'moral evil' as you put it.

I don't put it this way, God does in the Bible.

Yeah and in other countries you better not even intimate you heterosexuality much less flaunt it, or you gonna get you a flogging. Hooray for religion.

[Danmark]

I consider that a ridiculous question. Why would Jesus address an obvious moral evil that was not being promoted? This is why he didn't address homosexuality to His Jewish audiences where it wasn't an issue, but St. Paul did address it to his gentile audiences where in that pagan society, as today, it was seen as 'normal'.

Amazing! You reflect the same absurd view that Iranian President Ahmadinejad voiced when he claimed, “In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."

I'm sure they do have people with same-sex attraction, they don't have homosexuals flaunting their behavior in the street.

Are you seriously claiming that in Jesus' time in Palestine there were no homosexuals?

Never said that. I'm sure there were some with same-sex attraction, but they followed God's commands and didn't act those feelings out. That used to be known as a moral education.

Only if there were none could there be no issue of this 'moral evil' as you put it.

I don't put it this way, God does in the Bible.

We may appear to have gone off the subtopic with this, but I think you are inadvertently helping to answer the question of why there is this strong correlation between evangelicals and the political right. Both groups have a fairly simplistic, literal view of their scriptures/political philosophy.

As an aside, you are simply wrong re: your claim the Bible makes no ref. to homosexuals 'flaunting.' Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9 where Paul refers to the 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind.'

There are many Christians, as opposed to Christian fundamentalists who take a different view of homosexuality in the Bible. Most of them do not, as you do, claim to speak for God themselves.

The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. The Bible is interpreted by officials in some denominations as condemning the practice. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, however, the extent to which the Bible mentions the subject and whether or not it is condemned, has become the subject of debate.

This is the beginning of an interesting article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

BTW my point is not that the Bible says this or that about homosexuality or anything else. The central point is that conservative Christians, just like political conservatives see things simplistically and speak as if they 'speak for god.'

For example of the fact there is controversy on these issues, a longer passage from the same article:

Matthew 8; Luke 7[edit source | editbeta]
Further information: Homosexuality in the New Testament#Pais and Healing the centurion's servant
In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Jesus heals a centurion's servant who is dying. According to James Neill, the Greek term "pais" used for the servant in Matthew's account almost always had a sexual connotation.[32] In support of this view, he remarks that the word pais, along with the word "erasthai" (to love) is the root of the English word "pederasty".[32] He sees in the fact that, in Luke's parallel account, the centurion's servant is described as "valued highly"[33] by the centurion an indication of a homosexual relationship between the two, and says that the Greek word "doulos" (a slave) used of him in Luke's account suggests he may have been a sex slave.[32] Daniel A. Helminiak writes that the word pais was sometimes given a sexual meaning.[34] Donald Wold states that its normal meaning is "boy", "child" or "slave" and its application to a boy lover escapes notice in the standard lexica of Liddell and Scott and Bauer.[35] The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott registers three meanings of the word παῖς (pais): a child in relation to descent (son or daughter); a child in relation to age (boy or girl); a slave or servant (male or female). In her detailed study of the episode in Matthew and Luke, Wendy Cotter dismisses as very unlikely the idea that the use of the Greek word "pais" indicated a sexual relationship between the centurion and the young slave.[36] Neill himself compares the meanings of Greek "pais" to those of French "garçon", which, though also used to mean "waiter", "most commonly means 'boy'".
Matthew's account has parallels in Luke 7:1-10 and John 4:46-53. There are major differences between John's account and those of the two synoptic writers, but such differences exist also between the two synoptic accounts, with next to nothing of the details in Luke 7:2-6 being present also in Matthew.[37] The Commentary of Craig A. Evans states that the word pais used by Matthew may be that used in the hypothetical source known as Q used by both Matthew and Luke and, since it can mean either son or slave, it became doulos (slave) in Luke and huios (son) in John.[37] Writers who admit John 4:46-53 as a parallel passage generally interpret Matthew's pais as "child" or "boy", while those who exclude it see it as meaning "servant" or "slave".[38]
Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew write that Roman historical data about patron-client relationships and about same-sex relations among soldiers support the view that the pais in Matthew's account is the centurion's "boy-love" and that the centurion did not want Jesus to enter his house for fear the boy would be enamoured of Jesus instead. D.B. Saddington writes that while he does not exclude the possibility, the evidence the two put forward supports "neither of these interpretations",[39] with Stephen Voorwinde saying of their view that "the argument on which this understanding is based has already been soundly refuted in the scholarly literature"[38] and Wendy Cotter saying that they fail to take account of Jewish condemnation of pederasty.[36] Others interpret Matthew's pais merely as a boy servant, not a male lover, and read nothing sexual into Luke's "valued highly".