The impending death of evangelical Christianity?

@Diest TKO,

Even if your theory that the "son" is not young at all and a drunk, it's far from a justified reason to murder him.

Where is the trial? How is this moral at all?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Quote:

...let this one get back to the reasons for the apparent decay of evangelical christian political power.

That's obvious. Science. The Enlightenment. The discovery that we are all alone in a pitiless and meaningless universe.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest,

First, its not murder...its capital punishment...Yes, capital punishment is in the Bible, but it was never taken lightly and never done without extremely compelling evidence of guilt....but as I mentioned before, death penalty in the Bible is for another discussion and another thread, please.

The reference to the "elders of the city" and meeting at the gate is commonly referred to in the Bible for judicial action....so a trial was held...and the elders were required to agree on the man's guilt.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius,
Evangelical Christian's are often suggested as the reason Republicans were able to wrest control of Congress in 1984 and the Presidency in 2000/2004. This was obviously long after the emergence of science and "enlightenment". The question is what's happened since then...

I think the author of the original article is largely correct...Christians have been far too focused on fighting a few boogeymen like abortion and homosexuality while using arguments that only other Christian's appreciate. Therefore, the solution is to create more Christians thru focusing on stengthening the faith of our younger generations and living more closely to the values we espouse (so there are far less devastating incidents of hypocrisy). With success in this area, the moral change we desire in society will take care of itself in time.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo

You are correct in that the ancients in the Bible tolerated slavery as an acceptable (albeit distasteful) labor practice of the day. However, what the ancients practiced and God approved of were often very different things. What you clearly see in the Bible are numerous commandments and laws to restrict and regulate the practice, some of which you've quoted yourself.

Furthermore in the New Testament there are many verses that acknowledge slavery (servanthood) as a human institution of our fallen state, whereas God sees (and desires us to see) all men as equal

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)

...knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)

...a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

So I'll give you that slavery was a common and accepted practice in Biblical times and even go so far as to admit that the Bible does not explicitly condemn it. However, taking into consideration the numerous verses on humane treatment of slaves, spiritual equality and social justice, I'd still argue that the Bible and God do not condone (i.e., accept without apology)slavery.

Having taken this rabbit trail down the path a bit, I'm fairly confident that neither of us has convinced the other and it is highly unlikely we ever will. There are at least five other threads on A2K dealing with the slavery in the Bible topic and would suggest further discussion to one of those threads...let this one get back to the reasons for the apparent decay of evangelical christian political power.

Sure, I don't want to harp on this point at all.

But it really brings up a problem that modern Evangelism has; that some rules are followed strictly and to the letter, whereas others are excused and not followed to the letter. It is an inconsistency that robs legitimacy from claims that those who break certain rules are breaking God's laws.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

But it really brings up a problem that modern Evangelism has; that some rules are followed strictly and to the letter, whereas others are excused and not followed to the letter. It is an inconsistency that robs legitimacy from claims that those who break certain rules are breaking God's laws.

Good point...and I generally agree...We Christians often develop some very tortured explanations to justify our positions Biblically. From our Christian-centric viewpoint it makes sense, appears consistent and our world is right again, but certainly isn't something that will be very convincing to those outside our community. Sooo..first make a majority of Christians, then afterwards work to outlaw those societal boogeymen.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
But it really brings up a problem that modern Evangelism has; that some rules are followed strictly and to the letter, whereas others are excused and not followed to the letter. It is an inconsistency that robs legitimacy from claims that those who break certain rules are breaking God's laws.

Good point...and I generally agree...We Christians often develop some very tortured explanations to justify our positions Biblically. From our Christian-centric viewpoint it makes sense, appears consistent and our world is right again, but certainly isn't something that will be very convincing to those outside our community. Sooo..first make a majority of Christians, then afterwards work to outlaw those societal boogeymen.

It's an interesting tension you describe, for in order to make a majority of Christians, you need to have logical structure to explain your positions. I and many like me for example would never be convinced by documents or statements which rely upon Appealing to Authority for their justification.

For example, if you say 'Homosexuality is wrong,' it's not convincing to appeal to the Bible to explain your belief.

I also think that a lifetime of being around what I would call 'lay' evangelicals has made it difficult for me to take the group seriously; that is, people who seem to focus on the judgmental aspects of religion to a FAR greater extent then they attempt to focus on the 'living your life in a Christlike manner' aspect. If more Christians would shame/impress me with their innate drive to be good and forgiving, they would gain a lot more traction in my life as an ethos and way of life, as well as a religion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

It's an interesting tension you describe, for in order to make a majority of Christians, you need to have logical structure to explain your positions. I and many like me for example would never be convinced by documents or statements which rely upon Appealing to Authority for their justification.

Yeah, in religious belief logic and cold hard facts only take you so far....eventually it becomes a leap of faith (effectively you reach a conclusion that adopts a particular interpretation of the limited evidence you see, and fills any gaps in the proof with an inward and heartfelt trust and surrender). My Calvinistic background further insulates you and other non-Christians from any constant nagging on my part because I realize that I will NEVER be able to convince you through any kind of human logic or persuasion...God has to fill the gap I mentioned.

Cyclo wrote:

If more Christians would shame/impress me with their innate drive to be good and forgiving, they would gain a lot more traction in my life as an ethos and way of life, as well as a religion.

I agree...Christians should accept the person and the baggage that always comes with (i.e. their sinful state) but then rely on God and their own Christian example to convict them inwardly to reject their sinful state. Once he/she is a Christian, then continued sin becomes an issue of church discipline, which should be far more effective since both the discipliner and the disciplinee are committed to living to the same moral code.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Mesquite,
I figured this would be the verse that would be quoted. The "son" spoken of here is accused of gluttony and drunkeness (hardly the sins of your typical child), so it is reasonable to conclude that he is an adult. So we are not talking about stoning some ten year old child because he refuses to go to bed when told to.

In this case, we have an adult who is in active rebellion against his parents, being disrespectful, apparently getting drunk often and indulging in any number of other sins. One also has to consider the familial aspects of that ancient time...families were much closer, living together and supporting each other far into old age of the parents. Adult sons typically continued their father's business or vocation and remained responsible for taking care of their aged parents until they died. This son has apparently abrogated all those responsibilities...he is, in effect, incorrigible. Thus the parents, in desperation, turn to the civic authorities to help turn him around, and yes, if he still cannot be corrected, stoning is conducted by the authorities.

This is not all that different from parents nowadays who, out of desperation, turn to the civic authorities when their children are out of control or a threat to themselves or their livelihood. Of course, these days we typically send them to rehab, juvenile hall or if their addiction/disobedience turns violent and they are adults, we send them to prison. We certainly don't execute them for disobedience. But those were harsher times, where the family's survival was entirely dependent on a son's ability to "bring home the bacon". This is a case which is akin to parental abuse/neglect and certainly not a case of parents wishing to stone little johnny because he won't stop pulling his sister's pigtails.

Some heavy duty rationalizing propped up with strawmen. One would think you never heard of teenage drinking and overeating. I will concede however that there is some ambiguity as to the age of the son in that citation. Here is one that does not have that wiggle room.

Quote:

Num 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people...
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31 Blue Letter Bible

1 Reply

@mesquite,

Speaking of strawmen...diverting attention from "stoning children for disobedience" to Israelite practices during their subjugation of lands...there's plenty of other threads on A2k for this one.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

this thread is about discussing the notion of evangelical Christianity losing its cultural ground. A discussion on the religion's indescrepancies is an absolutly valid means to measure the religion's relavance in our society. This is especially true when noting that the abandonment of old and barbaric laws that are claimed as devine prove to better society.

The bible is very permissive of rape, murder, and slavery. It may introduce other passages that contradict previous ones on this matter, but all that does isconfound and make ambiguous these acts. The point is that these were supposed to be laws/rules. It's pretty piss poor.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Strawman is misrepresenting another's position in order to more easily refute it as you did with "certainly not a case of parents wishing to stone little johnny because he won't stop pulling his sister's pigtails. Diverting attention would be a red herring, but I didn't do that either. Both the stoning of the rebellious son and the slaughter and rape of the Midianite children were examples of God's instructions to the Israelites, and both go directly to the heart of this topic. It is primarily the evangelical Christians that take the position that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God and therein lies the problem IMO.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Woe is you, have a tissue.

How do you know we're alone?
How do you know we're meaningless?

While us humans struggle to get into third gear, we are quickly running low on the resources required to leave this fragile rock we've come to call home the last aeon. Earth ain't gonna be here forever ya know.

Is that enough of a motivating factor to further science and stop pretending that some magical sky fairy is gonna save us?

The absence of what you now believe would of course feel depressing, because it's all you want to be true.

. .. ... . . .. . .. . .. . . ... .. . . . .... . . .. . .. ... .... .. . .. ... .. .. .. . . . . ... ... . .. ... .. .... .. .

1 Reply

@Xenoche,

I am curious... what resource are we running low on (in the context of leaving the Earth before Earth is destroyed)?

The Earth has about 5 billion years to go before the Sun expands and swallows it. In that timeframe.... everything we are using now (except maybe Uranium) is a renewable resource.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Recycling is not 100% efficient, in that, you always get less than what you started with which constitutes a loss.

Even if all used material managed to become recycled (yeah right), there is still a loss (an exception being common metals, and that's assuming all used metal actually manages to get recycled, which simply does not happen). Lets say it takes us another 1 million years of praying for salvation before we finally realize how futile it is. Even a small material loss over the short term constitutes a major loss over an extensive period of time.

And that's if we aren't:
-Embroiled in global conflicts, on a scale that inhibits scientific progress that could be caused by any number of resource based shortcomings and/or territorial disputes.
-Subject to environmental change that would be detrimental to our survival.
-Hijacked by a dictatorial religious ideology that feels its better to sit tight and pray than deal with the reality of mankind's precarious situation.
-Get hit by an asteroid (which is very much inevitable over large scales of time unless we get extraordinarily lucky).

The odds are definitively against us (maybe its just me being pessimistic).

1 Reply

@Xenoche,

This is silly... but let me try again. First of all a science lesson.

Human beings mistakenly think that we are significant. In the history of the world, we are not. In fact if you represented the entire existence of the Earth by a mile, modern humans came around in the past couple of inches. Even in terms of resource, sure we are hurting ourselves... but from the point of the Earth, we are insignificant.

There are two types of resources. The first is matter (i.e. the atoms that are available for us to use). The second is energy.

1. There is very little matter that is leaving the Earth. The things we have put into orbit will come back (and be accessible to future humans). We have put a little matter on the moon, and a couple of robots on Mars or in space-- but besides that, we haven't lost any resources.

2. We are using energy that was from the sun, but was stored over the past million years or so. Most of the energy we use comes from the sun. It is not renewable in our lifetime (seeing as it takes tens of thousands of years to make fossil fuel), but on the timeframe of 1 million years, it is completely renewable and will be accessible to future humans.

I think you are missing the time frame involved.

The Earth will be destroyed in 5 billion years. Compared with the span of human life, even all life, this is a very very long time.

In the time before we need to leave the Earth, plastics will decompose, the continental shelves will move exposing brand new minerals to the surface, the surface of the Earth will be renewed. There will be new supplies of oil. The effects of todays humans will be completely insignificant well before 50 million years (just 1 percent of the time the Earth has left).

In fact, even if we destroy all human life, we will have more than enough time (and resources) to evolve all over again.

1 Reply

@mesquite,

Mesquite,
The problem is not with the inerrant and infallible word of God...no the problem lies in mortal men trying to judge God by men's standards. If you accept God as creator of men, then we have no more right to judge Him, than a painting has to judge the artist that created it. If the artist chooses to destroy certain paintings and keep others, that is certainly his perogative and the painting really has no say in the matter and certainly no authority to say he's wrong in his decisions.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Direct question: is slavery, rape, and murder wrong?
Direct question: if they are wrong, how can it be permited in the bible?
Direct question: if you think slavery, rape, and murder are wrong but your god's laws say otherwise, who is wrong?

You see slk, you seem to thnk we are god's paintings. This is a bad mistake. There is no support to believe that we are creations at all. Your mythology cannot make sound the contradictions in it's laws. It fails to condemn those passages as well.

This is the reason that evangelical Christianity will loose it's relavance in society, and rightfully so.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

In fact, even if we destroy all human life, we will have more than enough time (and resources) to evolve all over again.

I never thought of that. I guess the best way to live is to just enjoy the fact that your alive now, and not worry about ideologies, they just consume the little time we have.

Yes I did have a bit of a brain cramp when it came to visualizing the shear expanse of time. 5,000,000,000 years is an insane amount of time.

I see where your coming from and acknowledge that I was being a bit dense.
Thank you for your patience.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest wrote:

Direct question: is slavery, rape, and murder wrong?

Yes

Diest wrote:

Direct question: if they are wrong, how can it be permited in the bible?

Murder (as opposed to killing in an act of war), rape and slavery are not...such atrocities are acknowledged as happening in the Bible (as any accurate historical book would document), but are never presented as acceptable in God's eyes. Now I'll admit that the genocide seemingly practiced during war by the Israelites is troublesome, but the more disturbing question is why a perfectly holy and just God who tolerates sin only on penalty of death, doesn't simply kill everybody who walks the earth (after all, who hasn't sinned?). Addressed from this angle, you can't help but arrive at a very different perception of God (i.e., merciful, patient, loving, etc.). How do you address the mercy He showed Ninevah in the book of Jonah? Or His patience with Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 18 ("For the sake of ten [righteous], I will not destroy it")...which are only a few examples of God's mercy in the book. You'll undoubtedly assert that these are simply further examples of God's amorality or capriciousness. However under my belief that I'm merely a created being, I will not assert any ability or authority to morally judge any of the Creator's life or death decisions. Instead I'll take comfort that He hasn't taken such drastic action against me so far, continues to be patient with me and, in fact, has given me a complete reprieve despite my sin.

Now that I've completely turned you off, I'll admit that this again gets to the heart of this thread....I can't adequately explain, in terms that a non-Christian will understand or accept, why God does what He does. The Bible itself simply isn't clear enough, nor does the physical evidence that I or a non-believer can touch or see in this world allow one to draw an inevitable conclusion. At a certain point, I come to the end of possible human reasoning and must complete my understanding by some assumption of faith. You've done the same, Diest, although you've put your faith in a different assumption.

diest wrote:

You see slk, you seem to thnk we are god's paintings. This is a bad mistake. There is no support to believe that we are creations at all. Your mythology cannot make sound the contradictions in it's laws. It fails to condemn those passages as well.

Well, the assumption of faith you've made is that God is a myth and that we are not created beings....that is your opinion...mine is quite different. Unfortunately since you've staked out that particular position whereas I've staked out one wherein God exists, we have no fundamental point of agreement from which either of us can build an argument that will convince the other. You may continue to give me human arguments against my beliefs, but I will accept that I've made my human arguments to the best of my ability and let God finish the work.

1 Reply

The impending death of evangelical Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know