America a nation of Christians of convenience

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I feel too many "Christians" today are not following their faith or allowing their faith to guide them.  They are, instead, forcing their religion to follow them and their faith only to be in their ability mold Jesus and his message to their own fears and prejudices.

So what else is new?

example?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

example?

Both sides of the slavery debate back before slavery was outlawed. One side had the Bible for slavery, one side had it against - regardless of which, if either, you think was right in their interpretation they couldn't both be right. Therefore one of the sides had to be twisting the message to fit their preexisting views.

agreed, I was just wondering if it this discussion was going to drive itself into a logical ditch and attack those like me who hold certain sexual acts as sin, because, to me, it is christians accepting those acts who are the ones being convenient in their religion.

also, the examples used in the article are extremely weak.  but the example you just listed is legit

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Furthermore, the US has never had an established Church to rebel against, and the kind of churches that America's freedom of religion allowed have historically been more often of the more emotion-based, anti-intellectual, and sometimes outright anti-philosophical variety. This has been especially true in the South…

Explain to me, once again, how a church holding to NT basics is “anti-intellectual” in comparison with liberal churches of the JSojourner/Nathan/Andrew variety?

Is it really logical at all to claim to be a Christian while openly disagreeing with the NT?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I could be wrong, but I believe in terms of "anti-intellectual" he's referring to the greater tendency of American Christians (in comparison to European ones) to believe in young Earth creationism and possibly to a lesser extent those who completely reject any notion of climate change for religious reasons, both positions which require rejecting a good deal of scientific knowledge in various fields. Rather than having anything to do with holding to NT basics, it's more about those that hold to a more literal view of the OT.

As I read it, the NT doesn't change the literism of the OT.  The NT may add a symbolic layer onto some literal accounts of the OT, but the NT still accepts the OT as literal.