Although evangelical Christians are only 7% of the nation’s adult population ... (virgin, beliefs)

[anders]

I thought I was beginning to understand what your evangelicals are like, and then I saw

Thus, evangelicals are a subset of the born again population.

and understand even less than before. I tried to find something similar to 'born again' used in Swedish, to relate to something familiar to me, but the few sites where I found such a phrase (apart from sports and entertainment sites describing comebacks) belong to sects seemingly very distant from the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Sweden, of which I am a member since 1943. I don't remember ever having heard the term in the CoS. Those sects using it seemed to be slightly similar to Pentecostals, but I can't identify them better than that from the scanty information they gave on their beliefs. It was mainly "We teach what's in the Bible".

I would welcome a link to a page explaining what 'born again' means in the US.

[linwood]

Here you go..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again

[DianeVera]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Given that I AM a "true Evangelical" according to their definition, I wonder just how accurately the pundits understand this group???

Most Christians whose primary focus is filling the Kingdom of God have little time for politics, and we go out of our way to try and avoid it. It mostly causes division and we get enough of that as people accuse us of judging them (which we don't).

The Barna survey found that the people they classify as "evangelical Christians" talk about politics MORE than anyone else. Although some may avoid it for the reason you say you do, most do not, apparently.

According to the Barna page on Evangelical Christians, "Of the five faith segments (evangelicals, non-evangelical born again Christians, notional Christians, adherents of non-Christian faiths, and atheists/agnostics), evangelicals were the most likely to do each of the following," followed by a list which included "discuss political matters with other people."

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

The Barna survey found that the people they classify as "evangelical Christians" talk about politics MORE than anyone else. Although some may avoid it for the reason you say you do, most do not, apparently.

According to the Barna page on Evangelical Christians, "Of the five faith segments (evangelicals, non-evangelical born again Christians, notional Christians, adherents of non-Christian faiths, and atheists/agnostics), evangelicals were the most likely to do each of the following," followed by a list which included "discuss political matters with other people."

Coupling that fact and realizing the inroads evangelicals have made into the administration is the purpose of this thread.

Should that be really good for America?

[DianeVera]

Barna is an interesting site. Not sure I fully trust it, given that it's a site with a definite agenda. Are they nevertheless a reputable source of info? What are other people's impressions of how scholarly they are?

Here are pages listing other stuff on the Barna site:

* Barna by topic
* All Barna updates

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

Barna is an interesting site. Not sure I fully trust it, given that it's a site with a definite agenda. Are they nevertheless a reputable source of info? What are other people's impressions of how scholarly they are?

Of course it is "biased" - it is in their mission statement. It seems to be for "internal" Christian use

From the questions included in some "in-depth" analysis of the polls, I, as a layman, would say they are scholarly

[DianeVera]

Here's the Barna page on Born Again Chirstians, said to have been 38 % of the U.S. population in 2004. However, "Born Agains" are a much broader category than what Barna calls "evangelical Christians." Regarding non-evangelical "Born agains," see also Americal Faith is Diverse, as Shown Among Five Faith-Based Segments.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by DianeVera

Barna is an interesting site. Not sure I fully trust it, given that it's a site with a definite agenda. Are they nevertheless a reputable source of info? What are other people's impressions of how scholarly they are?

I think they are very scholarly.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

A helpful breakout -
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?P...naUpdateID=105