The impending death of evangelical Christianity?

Tags: Spirituality And Religion, Scripture
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Read Question
Reply to All

@wandeljw,

Quote:

The U.S. Constitution is also being constantly interpreted. Does that lessen its authority?

Yes it does.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You temporize, but you can't escape the fact that it is impossible to both adhere to every jot and tittle of the law and practice twenty-first century Christianity

We both temporize, just emphasizing different scripture with different preconceived notions...but I do agree that be can't adhere to every jot ant tittle of the law...that's the very reason we need Jesus....and as I indicated earlier, He obviates the need to practice the law as written in the OT.

Setanta wrote:

Evangelical Christians are increasingly marginalized by their insistence on the inerrant, divinely inspired received wisdom nature of scriptures to which they do not themselves adhere--and it makes them look like hypocrits.

I don't think it's a problem with insistence on the inerrancy of Scripture as much as the inabilty to express Christian beliefs in a manner that demonstrates our principles are consistent, well-founded and attractive. Most Christians have all their discussions on the why's and wherefores of Christianity within the protected cocoon of their church. Therefore they only learn Christian jargon and a shallow understanding of the principles they espouse. Then, when they attempt to justify a social position outside of the confines of the church, they fall back onto standard Christian talking points which simply don't resonate with the unchurched crowd they are trying to influence.

I am guilty of the same, so appreciate the opportunity to expand my "talking points". You clearly know the Bible, have thought it out well and now have "faith" that the Bible is myth. Nevertheless it's encouraging that you are willing to put that faith to the test against Christians like me in this forum. I strongly believe that one's faith should be strong enough to withstand the challenges put to it by skeptics and if not, then the faith isn't worth holding.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

That verse kind of destroys the argument that marriage is between a male and a female, don't you think slk?

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

I come from a different direction; I have no belief that the bible is anything other than a book of religious myth, similar to other books of religious myths. Nothing stemming from it could be used to convince me that any sort of higher being exists; instead, I respond better to arguments which attempt to build up a logical structure based on principles and observable evidence; and that doesn't tend to go very far.

Cyclopticorn

1 Reply

@parados,

It might...if the passage was written to address marriage or other earthly relationships....

Here's the whole passage...

Quote:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Ga 3:23-29

This passage is written in the context of our spiritual position before the law and before Christ. Therefore it is merely stating that we are all equally condemned by the law and equally under the authority of Christ. Says nothing about marriage....

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo,
Yes, you'd be a hard-case. Any argument that I or any other Christian could give probably wouldn't do the trick...there'd have to be something else going on working from the inside.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
Yes, you'd be a hard-case. Any argument that I or any other Christian could give probably wouldn't do the trick...there'd have to be something else going on working from the inside.

I don't want you to think I'm against the concept. I was just turned off from a very young age by some of your more vociferous brethren and their inability to answer some basic logical questions about the Loving God vs. our actual world we inhabit.

I believe in spirituality, not religion; happily agnostic, I have faith that if a higher being truly does exist, he sees what is inside people's souls and judges them based on that, not what they say or what religion they are a part of. Religion to me is a tool of control invented by men; if anything, I'm a lay Buddhist.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

As regards the topic of the thread, i'd say that evangelicals have shit their own nest as far as the public perception of them in the United States is concerned, but that doesn't mean they are a "dying" religious group. Very likely, they will never go away--but they are losing their grip on political power. People simply don't want to be any longer associated with people who are seen as bigoted and intolerant.

Overall, the evangelicals are doing well in the world. They have been very successful in central America and South America, and are increasingly successful in their missions in Africa. So i don't think there is any impending death of evangelical christianity. As for political power in the United States, i'd say they are already DOA.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

...their inability to answer some basic logical questions about the Loving God vs. our actual world we inhabit.

Unfortunately, these are not questions that can be answered by logic and certainly there are not "basic" answers to them. I'm curious....how does a "lay Buddhist" respond to those questions?

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
...their inability to answer some basic logical questions about the Loving God vs. our actual world we inhabit.

Unfortunately, these are not questions that can be answered by logic and certainly there are not "basic" answers to them. I'm curious....how does a "lay Buddhist" respond to those questions?

He says that they are unimportant and the wrong questions to be asking.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Oh.. so when you used it to argue slavery wasn't supported by the bible you were taking out of context.

Gee.. Who would have thunk that? You misuse the bible?

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados,
I argued the slavery was not condoned by the Bible but conceded that the Bible acknowledges that slavery existed in that day and age. I did use this verse to confirm that God did not distinguish any difference between slave, master, man or woman. The verse says nothing to condone or condemn slavery nor condone or condemn same-sex marriage, it simply acknowledges that slaves, masters, men and women exist and are equal in the sight of God (as they should be in our eyes as well).

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

I argued the slavery was not condoned by the Bible but conceded that the Bible acknowledges that slavery existed in that day and age.

A very failed argument. In a biblical universe where you can be smoted for the most trivial offense in the face of god, slavery is simply "acknowledged?"

slkshock7 wrote:

I did use this verse to confirm that God did not distinguish any difference between slave, master, man or woman.

Just what side of the whip they were on... There was and will always be a difference between those in shackles and those with putting people in them.

Those verses are not written to the slave, but the master. They are insincere and make a mockery of the atrocity that is slavery.

slkshock7 wrote:

The verse says nothing to condone or condemn slavery nor condone or condemn same-sex marriage, it simply acknowledges that slaves, masters, men and women exist and are equal in the sight of God (as they should be in our eyes as well).

Yes, because it does not condemn or condone I guess you think you're off the hook. In a religion that feels the need to make laws about the eating of fish, spilling seed (semen), and other small matters, the morality of slavery is...

Ambiguous?

Reality check SLK, ambiguous translates to permissive. No buts about it.

Your argument requires support you cant provide.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

if man and women are equal then why do you require one of each in marriage?

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote:

if man and women are equal then why do you require one of each in marriage?

Ummm, children, for one.......procreation between people of the same gender is kind of difficult.

1 Reply

Not that there's any shortage of children who need loving homes, of course. In fact, there is an overabundance of ones who do, neatly filling the 'children' requirement for gay marriage to be accepted.

As to the main topic, this sums up my position rather well -