Where's the voice of the majority of sane Christians?

[Cyrano]

I don't have any polls to prove it, but I believe that the vast majority of Christians in America are not the insanity-peddling, political hucksters we see on television and in the "news."

Wikipedia indicates that about 50% of Americans are Protestants and about 25% are Catholics. We all have neighbors, coworkers, and friends who are Protestant or Catholic. And we also know that most of them are rational and sane.

So why don't we ever hear from them in the "news" or on TV? Why don't we hear them speaking out against the lunatic fringe that has claimed "ownership" of Christianity and are perverting our politics and our society? Are the sane being intentionally silenced the way that most voices of reason have been silenced in our society? And by "silenced," I mean being ignored by the media.

The majority of pastors and priests in America have some influence on the beliefs of their parishioners. Are they speaking up? Are they warning of the dangers posed by those who wrap themselves in a cloak of deceit and call it Christianity?

I'm an agnostic, so obviously I don't go to church. But perhaps those of you who do can enlighten me. And to repeat my question, why are the majority of sane Christians not speaking out against the lunatic fringe that seems to have stolen the word "Christianity?"

[treestar]

1. Ignored by the media

The crazy makes for better entertainment, so the media always resorts to it. Whatever it may be.

[Puzzler]

2. Amen... and isn't that the same charge leveled against moderate muslims too?

[musical_soul]

6. Yep.

I think most Muslims do speak out against stuff, just not on TV. To be fair though, most fanatical Christians are not advocating killing those unlike them. They just advocate ultra conservative ideas.

[LiberalLoner]

3. We are speaking out. But if the media ignores us, what can we do? n/t

[Heidi]

13. Take to the streets, come out of the closet as all of us who want to live authentically

must at some point do.

ETA: This atheist will support you 1 jillion percent.

[peterburk]

107. New Media

New media. Web forums permit freedom of expression, and the sane majority can debunk radical individuals/cults.

Traditional media prefers extremes. Forum moderators prefer moderation. I am not denying my faith - I do believe that Jesus is the only way to God - but I believe that people will be more likely to hear the good news about Him through friendly moderate conversation, rather than scaremongering.

Peter

[musical_soul]

4. The media thrives on drama....

so dramatic Christians get the spotlight.

[bettyellen]

5. Rev Gaddy and the Interfaith Alliance is probably the most notable group speaking out

[TheKentuckian]

7. Does the media acknowledge, much less cover anything that is contrary to the official narrative?

If on any rare occasion they do, it is to distort, distance, or deceive in order to support the official narrative.

Why would Christians be any different than any other aspect of our society?

[BrklynLiberal]

8. They get the same amount of publicity as the moderate Muslims do....

Sanity and good news do not sell papers or make money for advertizers on TV and Radio.

[asjr]

9. I think a lot of "sane" Christians

don't speak out because they do not want to appear unChristian. I am Christian because that was the way I was raised. I was taken to a tent revival meeting in the South when I was a young child. If you have never been to one plant your feet and say NO, I WON'T GO. Intimidation is a powerful tool for some. Early on I decided I could believe without someone whacking me over the head with stories of hell and damnation. Basically that is what Republicans are doing to us. They can sound so reasonable and sincere. It has become an art for them. Some people actually believe Obama is going to kill us seniors. I live among some of them. I am too old, tired and don't know what to say to them. I have said one thing: "When will you think for yourselves and make up your own minds." I have not been very good at winning friends and influencing people.

[demosincebirth]

10. Why should we give him any credence? Why get upset over something

you don't believe in?

[Cyrano]

11. Can you be more specific? I don't follow what you're saying.

[demosincebirth]

12. I, generally, don't comment on anything I don't believe in. He has the right

to say what ever he wants and people to believe him. I just don't.

[noel711]

14. Yes, we're out there but have no spotlight...

Frankly,
I don't want a spotlight.
Sadly, the buffoons and con artists love the media
and the media is more than glad to feed them.

Do we speak out?
All the time, but few listen.
Talked in my sermon this morning about the
gullible, and then the truth:
we're not put here to worry about ourselves
but help care for others.

Rapture? We had a few giggles,
on the way out some asked me the biblical
evidence for the scam; I told them
there was but one: 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
that is it.

The looneys would love to take on the
'Christian' nomenclature just like the wingnuts
have taken over the Republican label.
But who gets the attention?

It's like those two wolves we have residing in our beings:
an angry, belligerent wolf,
and a kind, caring, compassionate one.
The one that gets fed... lives,
The other dies off.

Which one do we feed?

[pipi_k]

45. No spotlight? Make one. People who really care at least TRY n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

16. He's a voice of tolerance, wisdom and sanity--so the m$m considers Jim Wallis

unworthy of attention.

Meet Reverend Jim Wallis, founder of SoJourners. I'm proud to say he ALMOST always speaks for me: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.display_staff&staff=Wallis

[GeorgeGist]

17. Perhaps ...

they've been raptured.

[Serenades]

18. Sane

What's your definition of sane? People are usually reasonable until it comes to politics. Most people at the church I used to go to are Tea Party types. They're raised that way. Not bad people but they believe in small government (whatever that is), low taxes, and cut spending. None of the beliefs are particularly unreasonable until it is determined what is cut or who has lower taxes...

[Fumesucker]

20. They absolutely do not believe in anything resembling "small government"

Drug war, war on abortion, war on the whole damn world..

It takes a big and intrusive government to do that kind of crap.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cyrano]

24. Your post is an insult to about 90% of humanity.

If you choose to not believe in invisible sky people, that's your prerogative.

I'm an agnostic, which, plainly defined, is that I'm someone who is clueless as to whether there is any "universal intelligence" that exists or doesn't exist.

But to refer to those who choose to believe in some greater intelligence (whether called Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, or any other name) as not being sane, is about as narrow minded as one can get.

I suppose their are those who admire your moral certitude. As for me, I am aware that our knowledge of the reality of this vast universe is so far beyond our current comprehension as to make us toads trying to understand nuclear energy.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." But there is certainly something wrong with questioning the sanity of those who believe they do know.

[snooper2]

28. 90% of humanity are deluded...(is that a better word?)

90% of humanity believed the World was flat at one point in time...

90% of humanity believed that if the mom's left breast is bigger than the right breast she is having a girl...


Just because you have numbers on your side doesn't make it true FYI :)

[mike_c]

29. what do you call the delusional?

:shrug:

[Cyrano]

36. Let me put this a different way.

I don't believe what the majority of religious people believe.

Nonetheless, if it brings them comfort and makes the difficulties of life more tolerable for them, I can find no fault with that.

What I despise about organized religion is those who try to force their beliefs on everyone else. And the most despicable of them, are those who want to use the government to turn their beliefs into law. These people not only suck a lot, but many of them are frauds who are out for their own power and wealth.

As for the vast majority of believers, they are not the people I described in the previous paragraph. There's no reason to conclude that that their beliefs can do harm to you.

[mike_c]

41. I think their beliefs have done enormous harm...

...but that's rather beside the point at present. Their "beliefs" are delusions about things that do not exist-- or for which I have never seen ANY compelling evidence, which amounts to the same thing. Moreover, they argue incessantly about WHOSE delusions are, um, less delusional than others, LOL. Anyway, I ceased having respect for the willfully delusional a long time ago.

[The Straight Story]

32. If we believe only in what we can see, and don't look, then I don't believe in atoms

or neutrinos, etc - yet even without seeing we believed and looked for them and many other things the human eye itself cannot detect.

[mike_c]

39. OK, be my guest....

You might want to try a flat Earth, too.

[dimbear]

97. The human eye can directly detect alpha particles. Lids open or shut no difference.

Don't, however, hold radium up to your eye. Take my word for it. Fact.

[dimbear]

98. More wonders of the unseen world.......

Also, the retina is sensitive to ultraviolet, and only doesn't see it because the lens part of the eye is opaque to UV. If you have a major cataract operation and have the lens replaced, you will be able to see near uv light.

You need to know stuff like this. There aren't many facts in theology.

[rasputin1952]

33. Why should anyone believe you exist?

After all, you're nothing but worlds produced from the ethereal aspect of the universe?

You chose a username, remain anonymous on a board that is ruled by 0/1 and electrons that few can truly explain...so do you exist, or are are you a mere figment of another's imagination?

[mike_c]

38. now there's a compelling argument in favor of religious delusions....

SOMEBODY is demonstrably typing at the end of this wire, LOL....

That's more evidence for my existence than all the worlds religions combined have ever mustered in support of their delusions.

[rasputin1952]

42. How does anyone know that, as a fact?

Perhaps we are all merely an illusion, I can't prove you exist, perhaps you are merely a part of my imagination, or me a part of yours?

It is easier to deny something than to accept something. Since it is impossible to to prove/disprove, essentially, the argument is moot.

[mike_c]

54. OK....

In my subjective reality, I exist. I'm having a conversation with SOMEONE, so there is sufficient evidence to accept your reality (although I do not know anything about you beyond that, really).

Look, I'm a biologist by training and profession. I understand that our central nervous systems do not interact directly with the surrounding universe, so that all awareness is essentially a subjective model. Nonetheless, one's model of the world is or isn't based upon sensory evidence-- if something reflects or emits certain electromagnetic wavelengths, we can "see" it, if it transfers energy to certain skin surface transducers, we "feel" it. One can argue that the entire model is conceptual, and therefore all concepts are objectively real but I reject that notion as the laziest of relativistic thinking. It simply isn't consistent with empirical processes that I understand and accept as being capable of modeling the universe as it exists, or at least as close as human consciousness is capable. We can use the observed rules of nature to infer the existence of objects we cannot interact with directly, from galaxies to sub-atomic particles, by observing their interactions with things that we can sense.

There is zero evidence in favor of deities that cannot be better explained by more rational models that are supported directly by observable evidence. For my money, that means that such deities either do not exist or they cannot influence any observable aspect of human life, so they might as well not exist regardless. The strong propensity for humans to "believe" in the existence of invisible beings with no observable influence on human life is not in itself evidence for their existence-- it represents a flaw in the shared model of subjective reality we all create in our brains and spinal cords. A pathology, if you will.

on edit-- And, as usual, the christians solved this dilemma by having my comments removed because they cannot stand to have their delusions questioned.

[kwassa]

58. well

There is zero evidence in favor of deities that cannot be better explained by more rational models that are supported directly by observable evidence. For my money, that means that such deities either do not exist or they cannot influence any observable aspect of human life, so they might as well not exist regardless.

"For your money ..." is the operative phrase here. Others think differently, and don't deserve to be called insane for thinking so. You also seem to have just qualified your absolute belief in the lack of the existence of deities. This seems inconsistent.

The strong propensity for humans to "believe" in the existence of invisible beings with no observable influence on human life is not in itself evidence for their existence-- it represents a flaw in the shared model of subjective reality we all create in our brains and spinal cords. A pathology, if you will.

You think it a pathology, many others including myself think quite differently. I will refer you to an excellent book on this subject "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James, a classic on this very subject. I would also point out that there are many concepts of the divine that have nothing to do with invisible beings, which seems to be your limitation on this subject.

You didn't have your comments removed because you questioned Christian's beliefs, but because you called them names.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

106. Je pense, donc je suis!

[JVS]

23. Mainline Protestantism and Catholicism got out of the pissing contest phase long ago.

You don't hear them because in they don't consider it their job to tell the others what to believe.

[cleanhippie]

25. And thats easy to do when those that ARE telling others what to believe is the SAME as them.

No one is asking "moderate" christians to tell others what to believe, but they ARE being asked to speak out against the ones that believe in the same religion who oppress those that do not, but instead they have "gotten out of that pissing contest".

[JVS]

26. Guess how much standing moderates have with fundamentalists.

None.

So the policy is: you do your think we do our thing.

[cleanhippie]

30. And if everyone followed that policy, there would be no issue.

But since both you and the "wingnuts" all follow the same religion, and you choose to remain silent when they use your religion to oppress those that do not share your religion, you cannot complain when you get rolled into the criticism of your religion.


I find it MOST curious that the only time so-called "moderates" ever get vocal is when THEY are accused of being the same as the "wingnuts".


Curious, indeed.

[JVS]

35. "But since both you and the "wingnuts" all follow the same religion,"

No. It's not the same religion. That's the whole point of schism.

[cleanhippie]

40. From my point of view, it looks eerily similar.

Same book, same god, same commandments, similar dogma, similar rituals...the list goes on and on. The only thing you disagree on are some of the particulars and minutiae.


In fact, I really see very little difference at all.

[kwassa]

48. You live by your definition of sameness, we live by ours.

Life goes on.

[Fumesucker]

37. Good point..

The Moderate Christians here stay mum until someone starts talking trash about "Christians" and then they say "but we're not like that".

There was an epic thread about that over the last few days, posted by a Christian who was complaining of "frantic attacks"..

[Mariana]

88. LOL, it was "frenzied attacks". nt.

[Fumesucker]

93. You're right, frenzied..

Two words with similar meanings and they both start with the letters fr..

I guess frenzied is a bit more dramatic than frantic..

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

34. Think about the situation with the atheist kid in AL that got death threats..

Because he wanted his school to follow long established Federal law and not have a prayer at the graduation.

In all these years this has been going on in that school no "Moderate Christian" has ever stood up and said "this isn't right and it's against the law".

This is why many of us who are non religious think that many Moderate Christians really agree with the fundies, even when it's blatantly obvious they're breaking the law you leave it to some poor atheist kid to stand up to the fundie onslaught.

So your "thing" is to allow the fundamentalists to break the law and make all Christians look like jerks because you will not speak up when the fundies do something that everyone knows is illegal.

[darkstar3]

47. Damn right!

[Arugula Latte]

31. Well, I wish the Pope and his minions would STFU.

Ditto for the helmet haired evangelists and their minions.

[Goblinmonger]

62. Are we now pretending that the RCC isn't part of the problem?

If they would stop their assault on the rights of women and gays, you might have a point. But they haven't done that, have they?

[snooper2]

27. All religion are run by hucksters, that's the problem...

Your church can be the most progressive, loving, compassionate place in the World.

But, the underlying principle of the church itself is still false. If they are collecting money from the faithful then in essence it's a scam as well- (albeit a scam with good intentions)

[kwassa]

51. The underlying principle is false to you, not to millions of others.

So calling them hucksters is only a matter of your personal opinion.

[snooper2]

53. billions of others..and not opinion, it's a fact...

give humanity a couple thousand years and numbers on our side will increase :)

[Goblinmonger]

63. You are really using a fallacy to prove your point?

I don't have to point out the flaw in that, do I?

[rasputin1952]

43. Why does it have to be "Christians"?

Muslims, Jews, and a host of other religions including Hindus, Native Americans and many others believe in some sort of "Supreme Being".

Those that get the "press" are the maniacs and loons, millions work tireleslly everyday to try to help others, regardless of the faith, or lack thereof.

How many Catholics aid the poor, Muslims clothe the naked, Protestants feed the hungry? How many Red Cross workers help when disaster strikes? How many Salvation Army members show up at fires and disasters? How many agnostics and atheists dig people out of rubble after an earthquake?...millions of people work under all kinds of conditions to aid others.

Just because a few loons make fools out of themselves does not a movement make; they just get the lion's share of the coverage.

[Nihil]

103. You make some good points ...

> Why does it have to be "Christians"?
> Muslims, Jews, and a host of other religions including Hindus, Native Americans
> and many others believe in some sort of "Supreme Being".

Because without a simple broad-brushing label, there would be no easy target.


> Those that get the "press" are the maniacs and loons, millions work tirelessly
> everyday to try to help others, regardless of the faith, or lack thereof.

"The people don't want facts - they want news!"
(Lord Bostwick in "The Assassination Bureau")


> How many Catholics aid the poor, Muslims clothe the naked, Protestants feed the
> hungry? How many Red Cross workers help when disaster strikes? How many Salvation
> Army members show up at fires and disasters? How many agnostics and atheists dig
> people out of rubble after an earthquake?...millions of people work under all kinds
> of conditions to aid others.

Who knows? The majority of them are doing it because they are "people" rather
than because they are "members of arbitrary subset XYZ of 'people'" and they
are more concerned about the task in hand than identifying themselves in such
a trivial & pointless manner under those circumstances.

:shrug:

[pipi_k]

44. One of the more popular excuses

As to why more "sane" Christians aren't speaking out against their crazy brethren seems to be that the media are ignoring them.

I say bullshit to that.

I've seen plenty of saner Christians on the news the last few days speaking out against the crazies. The media are not ignoring them. If that were true, we wouldn't see ANY sane Christians at all.


Squeaky wheels get the grease. If sane Christians really want to be heard, there are ways. News media like drama? Good. Give it to them. Organize protests. Carry signs denouncing the crazies on behalf of whatever "sane" church they belong to. There are ways.

So this "They/we are being ignored" stuff is just a bullshit excuse.

[darkstar3]

49. Absolutely.

To paraphrase what I've said in other threads before, if the media won't give you a spotlight or a microphone, horn in on the one they're giving to your supposed opposition.

[kwassa]

52. Then what is the problem? If they are speaking out and the media is reporting it.

What is the problem?

I don't get your issue.

[pipi_k]

56. To explain...

There are some who claim that the reason more "sane" Christians aren't being heard from regarding their crazy brethren is because the media are ignoring them.

My issue is that it's a bullshit excuse to say that.

I have seen some. Granted, it's probably not the numbers we would like to see. We need MORE "sane" Christians out there refuting the crazies.

It's not the media who are ignoring them, like they claim.

It's that they don't give enough of a shit to make it happen, whatever they have to do.

If they really wanted to be heard, believe me...they'd find a way.

[kwassa]

60. It isn't bullshit.

It doesn't get reported, and probably won't until we start burning crosses or something.

I also think that we have no greater responsibility to protest it than anyone else. We have no greater liability, a role that some atheists wish to impose on us.

[Goblinmonger]

64. Then stop your bitching that the crazies are what people think of

when they think of Christianity. Give us something else to look at or deal with it.

[kwassa]

66. Look for yourself.

You have eyes, and you have Google.

[Goblinmonger]

67. *Checks Google News* Tennessee bans discussion of gays in school

WAY TO GO CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!

[kwassa]

68. after we told you that moderate Christians are not found in the news

What is your point?

[Goblinmonger]

74. If you let a certain portion be the voice for your religion

don't be surprised when people think they are the voice of the religion.

My point is that you aren't making enough noise denouncing the voice of religion you disagree with. You told me to google it. I'm telling you what comes up.

[kwassa]

76. If I let? Voices are determined by media organizations, not us.

You are repeating a false meme, something said on R/T and in this thread a zillion times ...

and guess what?

It isn't true.

[Goblinmonger]

78. yes, you are right

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the liberal christians to get any press. Never going to happen. No matter what you do. Impossible.

Give me a break.

[kwassa]

80. Give yourself a break, and give up this falsehood.

[Goblinmonger]

82. If the liberal christians don't like the voice of Christianity that is out there

make a new one be heard or stop your bitching. How is that a falsehood?

[pipi_k]

69. It is bullshit, as I said...

Because I did see a few religious figures making negative comments on the whole Rapture thing.

They didn't burn crosses or rip their flesh to shreds.

They calmly spoke out against it.


There were a couple. There need to be more. They aren't being silenced or stifled by the media.

They're just not bothering. Because if they did, they would be heard.

And they don't even have to be crazy about it. Gathering in the street with signs and protesting peacefully would work too.

[kwassa]

72. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT BOTHERING?

This is pure assumption on your part.

[LynneSin]

46. Checking in - what questions do you have

[LanternWaste]

50. The church I attend has no want nor desire of the bully pulpit...

"So why don't we ever hear from them in the "news" or on TV?..."

The church I attend has no want nor desire of the bully pulpit, and it's from that pulpit that much of the chaos stems. The typical, small suburban/rural church rarely gets in the news because the typical, small suburban/rural church rarely makes news.

The interfaith dialogs that happen quite frequently, the community outreach, the assistance and inter-assistance between churches and neighborhoods rarely gets even local coverage.



:shrug:

[WolverineDG]

55. Rational & sane makes for boring newscasts nt

[DatManFromNawlins]

57. Define "sane" to me in the context of religious belief

How "sane" is it when you allow something to dominate your life that you have never personally witnessed and can't prove exists at all? When you devote the entire morning of one of your days of the week to go and read and sing about mythological characters? When you fear for a soul that you can't prove exists?

I have a friend who catches hell from his friends for dressing up like a Ghostbuster and going to a comic convention once a year, but they don't think anything of dressing up and spending time worshipping imaginary people in the sky.

[LanternWaste]

65. Much like philosophy and politics, yes?

"How "sane" is it when you allow something to dominate your life that you have never personally witnessed and can't prove exists at all? ..."

Much like philosophy and politics, yes? Or do some imaginary human constructs hold greater weight than other imaginary human constructs?

[Dappleganger]

59. Because most sane people ignore the crazies.

Seriously, we don't even acknowledge they exist for the most part. These crazy rapture folks have been around for more than a hundred years so IMO they deserve to be ignored.

[pipi_k]

71. OK, but a hundred years ago

they could be safely ignored because there was no mass media back then.

Now it's a different world.

They're being given coverage.

And, in some circles, it would be said that ignoring something is akin to condoning it.

[Dappleganger]

73. Don't be ridiculous.

Some of us actually have a life which has little room for this. That hardly means it's condoned.

[strawberryfield]

Most of my neighbors are fundamentalists

They know I am a "non believer", and they think I am going to hell, but for the most part they are nice people. I don't care what they think, but I have no problem with them thinking it.

[strawberryfield]

70. Most of neighbors are fundamentalists

They know I am a "non believer", and they think I am going to hell, but for the most part they are nice people. I don't care what they think, but I have no problem with them thinking it.

[Brigid]

75. Looking through this thread, Cyrano, I think you see your answer.

Those of us who are Christian but not of fundie/nutter stripe get drowned out by the likes of Fred Phelps and Terry Jones. Then you get the screaming from the bigots on the other side like some around here, for whom the mere mention of anything to do with religion is enough to send them into orbit. It just becomes an exercise in futility, so we just give it up as a bad job.

[LanternWaste]

77. those who speak the loudest, get the least done....

"drowned out by the likes of..." "you get the screaming from the..."

I've often found that in the long run, those who speak the loudest, get the least done. :P

[cleanhippie]

100. Curious you would say that, considering the laws that have been passed by those "loud" ones.

They seem to be getting PLENTY done. And it all sucks.

[LanternWaste]

108. One need only differentiate between results and messes.

One need only differentiate between results and resultant messes. However, should you believe that loud, petulant AM radio-style tantrums are effective and efficient to policy and social debate rather than simply being an echo-chamber, by all means... :shrug:

[seabeyond]

79. i was thinking the same after seeing all the mocking threads on 1st page

thinking who the fuck is gonna say a word.

gotta chuckle at the hypocrisy of self righteous.

[WolverineDG]

86. It's one of those

"clowns to the left, jokers to the right" kind of situations.

dg

[seabeyond]

90. here i am, stuck in the middle

with you...

lol

that is cute.

(did i get the words right? i never get them right in a song and make up my own)

[WolverineDG]

92. yeah, you got it right

:)

dg

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

101. Funny how they always seem to be "right", huh?

[w8liftinglady]

83. Quakers tend to act , not talk.

Having beliefs crucified is enough of a motivation to keep your beliefs to yourself.
enough said.

[Cyrano]

87. You're absolutely right, Brigid. It's why I gave up on

responding to my own OP a couple of hours ago. I really thought this could be a productive, rational discussion, but it has ended up in the sewer.

Peace.

Cyrano

[Nihil]

104. It was a nice hope ...

> I really thought this could be a productive, rational discussion,
> but it has ended up in the sewer.

... and - to be fair - there are still many "islands" that haven't been
swamped yet but Brigid's comment still holds true.

Thanks for trying though! :hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

81. The same place all the sane politicians are.

Being ignored by the media. If it's not sensational it's not news worthy. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

85. Inside.

[struggle4progress]

89. About 225 million Americans call themselves "Christians" so there's probably some diversity there

[Leontius]

91. If you want one answer look at post #41

[Leontius]

94. Make that post #40

[laconicsax]

95. Sorry to break it to you, but the majority of Christians (in the US) are literalists/creationists.

Polls and surveys consistently put the number of Biblical literalists at about 40% of the US population. Since 50% of US Christians is about 37-38% of the US population, it follows that unless there are a least 9 million non-Christian Biblical literalists (remember: Jews and Muslims don't even have those numbers), the "sane" Christians are a minority.

[dimbear]

99. IMHO, the vast majority of 'sane' Christians are just in it for social reasons,

not particularly convinced one way or the other and hence don't have loud vocal fixed opinions. Just my two cents.

[jeepnstein]

102. Disputes within the Church...

are typically handled within the Church. Unless you are reading something published by a Christian for Christians you aren't going to see a whole lot of discussion on Mr. Camping. You can be sure he was the topic of many sermons last Sunday. We really have nothing to gain by engaging a nut like that in the national media where the discussion can be bent to fit whatever agenda suits the owner of the media outlet.

This isn't the first and certainly not the last time we'll have some so-called prophet telling us the end is near. The Church is constantly under attack from outside and within. A common theme of these attacks is preying on believers' shocking ignorance of what the Bible actually says.

[Evoman]

105. They're to busy getting mad at atheists making fun of the rapture.

I mean, yeah....being a misogynist, racist, ant-science Fundi fuck means that you're not very nice, but atheists making fun of their idiotic and completely non-sensical beliefs....that's really mean!!

Ya know, I really don't give a shit if moderate or liberal christians stand up against the fundies in the media. I don't necessarily think they have an obligation to shout down every last word the fundies spew. In fact, I think I do sort of buy their argument that they don't always have a voice. It would be nice if they tried harder, and it might make us friendlier to the moderates, but y'know...whatever.

But mod christians do have a voice here, on DU. And I'm pretty convinced that they would rather use their voices to protect fundies from atheists, then the other way around. I'm not sure where that leaves us.