sounds like it was mostly Evangelicals. Or are most Protestants Evangelicals. I don't know that info.

So I went and looked around on the site. I didn't find any breakdown of the sample taken.

just wondering about where it fits in the larger population.

I know many churchgoers who think this way.

Trump voters. Not really surprising they believe in bullshit.

The Protestants I know (Episcopalians and Lutherans, mostly) believe the opposite of the majority statements in all of those examples. To get the results in that chart they'd have had to survey mostly fundamentalist evangelicals.

Last Methodist function, a funeral, I was ever at was 22 years ago, and the last time I went to a service at one was well before that. I was raised Methodist, my father's side were Methodists. My granddad trained to be a Methodist minister, his father was a Methodist minister, his mother was a lay preacher. think MAYBE my grandparents on that side would have possibly disagreed some with the statement on scripture, but would have wholeheartedly agreed with the rest of the questions. The rest of that side would have agreed with all the statements.

Looks pretty evangelical, though, to me. A little distorted by the sample, I'm guessing. I just went there because guillaumeb sourced one of his "Good News" posts there, and I was curious. Looks like there's a bias in their sampling.

Whenever the topic of ass-backward churches comes up, somebody always pokes their head in to remind us that the Episcopal Church is actually pretty chill.

Yeah, that's fantastic. The problem is the Episcopal Church has about 2 million active baptized members in the United States, which accounts for about 1% of the total Protestants in this country.

Chill? Yes. Statistically significant? No.

Moving along...

I asked the question of who was interviewed only because the chart doesn't reflect the opinions of the Protestants I know, who are Lutherans and Episcopalians. It would be useful to know the denominational breakdown of the survey participants.

25.4% of Americans identify as "Evangelical Protestant" while only 14.7% identify as "Mainline." Lutheran and Episcopalian are only about 1/4 of that group, so perhaps it's your sample size that is limited?

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

We surround ourselves with people most like ourselves. Not inherently bad, but it becomes problemmatic when you start thinking your carefully curated social circle is statistically representative of the general population.

The chart says "protestants" which obviously excludes Catholics. Which means of course that 20% of the Christian population is excluded. At that point, "evangelical" Christians are going to make up something like 50% of the stated surveyed population. ALL of them are going to hold that point of view. So roughly half of the balance of the rest of the population is going to hold the general positions represented. Now, the questions were a bit broad, so you're going to tend to get fairly rigid responses without alot of nuance to them. For example, I know evangelicals that "believe" the bible is literal, but also acknowledge the rational difficulty in holding that position. What is important to understand is that if for some reason they found out that some critical portion wasn't literally true, it wouldn't really affect their overall faith in Jesus or basic doctrine.

And this is politically important. Their faith in certain concepts isn't nearly as strongly connected to their theological underpinnings, as it is to their world view. Their theology is generated BY their world view. Their objection to abortion and birth control isn't really founded upon scripture or even the long term history of Christian faith. It is a relatively "modern" concept which is founded in the maintenance of cultural norms surrounding sex and social structure. It BECAME a theological foundation after the fact. Look at how people used theology to justify Jim Crow or slavery. Ultimately they walked away from all that, but their underlying beliefs and theology didn't change. Alternately, despite specific scripture discussing the charging of interest on loans, and on the dangers of wealth itself, not to mention throwing the "money changers" out of the temple, they have no problem with ideologies like "prosperity theology".

Anti-abortion views are vastly less based upon theology as they are on some romantic view of babies. People of virtually no particular faith oppose abortion. Those of faith are just more "dedicated" to their views because they have convinced themselves that they are advancing "gods will". If you read the popes letter on abortion, it isn't particularly based upon scripture. And it also discusses things like capital punishment. None the less, vast numbers of people will reference it, ignorant of its total content or its underpinnings.

The graphs given are only concerning "American Protestant churchgoers." Catholics aren't part of the numbers, so your objection is irrelevant.

The Pew figures - breaking up evangelical (i.e., conservative) and mainline (moderate-to-liberal) Protestants - give a ratio (roughly 2:1) that isn't far off from what the graphs show.

I mentioned that it excluded RCC. So I attempted to adjust the results accordingly. They still don't strictly align to the results. So you can't entirely attribute them to evangelical or fundamentalist religions. Alternately, if one knows anything about the other contributors to the results, it is inconsistent with the theology associated with those organized religions.

But they are completely compatible. Rougly 2:1 conservative to moderate ratio among Protestants in the USA, according to Pew. And if you look at voting patterns it's even more notable:

?w=723

(From https://religioninpublic.blog/2017/03/10/the-2016-religious-vote-for-more-groups-than-you-thought-possible/)

Even mainline Protestants went for Trump. The graphs in the OP are entirely reasonable.

Which doesn't align with the 75 - 80% kind of numbers in the original graphic.

Mainline went roughly 50/50 despite the 75 and 80+ % kind of result in the original graphic.

Evangelicals will skew a survey of ALL Protestants, because there are so many more of them.

Do you understand why?

Once you remove RCC, "mainline" represents about 30% of the population surveyed. "Evangelical" represents about 50%. That was sorta my point. Even with the exception of removing the RCC, the survey skews towards evangelical even beyond their representation.

Evangelicals outnumber mainlines by about 2:1 - as your numbers further confirm what I said.

The facts are, US Protestants are strongly conservative in their political and religious views. Evangelicals are overwhelmingly conservative, and mainlines borderline. Since there are many more Evangelicals, a survey of ALL Protestants is going to result in conservative results, which is what we see.

I'll tell you what, why don't you state exactly what you think "real" numbers should be for the graphs in the OP? What numbers do you FEEL would be more accurate?

The evangelicals are the dominate, nonRCC population in the US. Mainline is roughly half of what they are (actually probably closer to 30/50) The point is, if one knows much about the theology of mainline christians, the results of that survey don't really match the theology. Roughly half of the mainline would have to hold conservative points of view despite the theology of their organized religion. That would be a large number. Probably what one is seeing is that the vast majority of Mainline christians were uncomfortable with the questions and gave the more conservative answer, in absence of the ability to contribute nuance. That of course includes a large number of people who have a poor understanding of their own organized religions understanding of the theology so they gave some boilerplate response that is more connected to their politics, than their theology.

And in a way that is politically much of what we are challenged. People who have more of a political point of view of their own faith than theological. As such, arguing the theology is irrelevant. I was in a discussion with a relatively knowledgeable southern baptish about global warming and the EPA in general. I pointed out that within his theology, the earth was a gift from God and we were sworn to care for it as the gift from God that it was. He actually agreed. The definition of "caring for it" became the conversation, but it did take a crap load of objections off the table.

A little more than half of mainline Protestants voted for Trump, so why is it impossible for you to accept that roughly half of them hold conservative points of view? I'd love for you to explain.

I'd also like to know what you THINK the numbers should be, for you to accept them as accurate.

The publishing house of the Southern Baptist Church....

The pie chart results aren't surprising to me, considering the source. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of denominations they surveyed.

I will add the following as well, for what it's worth. I grew up in a "split household" so I went to Catholic and Southern Baptist services. I can vividly remember a "Sunday School" lesson at our Baptist Church when I was a teen that each week focused on a different denomination and how they were not only different than a particular Protestant denomination but how that particular denomination was "outside of God's plan". As an inquisitive kid, I was ostracized for asking the simple question "why?" too many times. So, I fully admit my bias towards Lifeway, who published the study books that were used in our youth group, and all of their pursuits. I also have to laugh a little considering they are reaching out to other Protestant denominations that they are teaching their kids are so damnable!!

here is something completely unrelated to the topic:


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next?CMP=share_btn_tw

LifeWay Research is a part of LifeWay Resources which is a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. My suspicion is that the research had a predetermined outcome. It smells funny to me.

I am curious about the first pie-chart. The whole idea of Christianity is that sin does not have to be punished.

If they're asking only Southern Baptists, they're going to get some serious skewing.

Your punishment for sin comment is, indeed, interesting. Of course, as the doctrine goes, you are forgiven because Jesus, so it's the "others" who will be punished. That's convenient, as always.

That idea is contrary to basic Christian concepts. It seems incongruous to me that a Christian believes that "sin must be punished." That's what repentance and forgiveness are all about.

Whatever a Christian believes about "others," they cannot reasonably believe their "sin must be punished." That makes me wonder about the question(s) asked that reached that result.

Clearly. I'm pretty sure a lot of Christians believe that the sin disappears once it is forgiven, at least a personal level. Of course in the case of sinful behavior that involved a victim, it certainly doesn't disappear.

Many Christians answer such surveys based on their individual understanding about how it affects them, I think.

He had to be assured by Everett that the State of Mississippi was "a little more hard-nosed."

Forgiveness absolves the spiritual consequences of sin but not the physical consequences - for either the sinner or the victim. Or as my criminal law professor put it: "Confession may be good for the soul but it's usually contrary to penal interests."

never lead to legal consequenses. Witness Brett Kavanaugh. Penal punishments are pretty much irrelevant.

Whether or not there are legal consequences, forgiveness of sin does not remove the temporal consequences of the bad actions.

The only reason you don't get punished is that Jesus was punished instead. Unless commit the unforgivable sin of not believing Jesus was punished for you.

It's not without scriptural support but I've always been skeptical. Paul seems to advance that idea is his writings but not so much in the Gospels. There are a host of theories in the area. I tend more toward the satisfaction theory of atonement advanced by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.

An argument can be made supporting the idea of Christian Universalism from the satisfaction theory. Rob Bell's "Love Wins" makes this argument very well.

is why it's critical that they discredit science. It's interesting that the Bible can teach us a lot about human nature, but that is ignored in favor of the lessons in physics the Bible has to offer.

is at odds with modern science.

Or so simple. I've been a liberal for decades alongside conservatives in bible study. There is a short circuit somewhere when it comes to jesus described in the gospels and the applucation in our culture. The punitive pro Israel agenda that rises above other threads in the OT takes hold thru repetition and the story of global grace is minimized. If anyone saw the Charles Manson documentary recently, then you are appalled by the vulnerability of his followers to be completely persuaded. It's mind boggling. When I read the book of revelation alongside the evangelicals a couple years ago, thousands of them, I was also appalled that they couldn't see the danger of political powers joined with religion and the lawless braggart that arose in our own nation. They heard Franklin Graham approve and followed suit.

The flock wants to be told what to do, and so they have handy book to tell them and authority figures to interpret what it means. The leaders see they have good little followers, so they take advantage of them.

There is a fundamental assumption that "the people" don't want a dictatorship in any form (monarchy, despot, theocracy, etc.) . There is a reason the people that wrote the constitution put little faith in the "voters" and tried to structure it such that only certain people would ultimately have power. Even the roots of the democratic party trace back to people who would not have liked that title. It is why for decades many autocratic rulers explained to the west that if they embraced democracy in their regions, those most likely to get elected would be folks like the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queada, and Isis.

That the plural of anecdote isn't data.

Also the Episcopalian church isn't all unified, there are many that are conservative. Several years back there was even a schism where the conservatives lost the lawsuit for property or something. Plus what they did in Africa, iirc.