The impending death of evangelical Christianity?

@slkshock7,

It's fair to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in order to be believed, wouldn't you say?

Personally, the concept that God is 'merciful, patient, loving, etc.' doesn't last one whit past the Book of Job.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Slkshock7 wrote:

. . . my own experience of failing to pass my own deeply held Christian beliefs to my children (I am not alone; in my experience there are many Christian parents who sorrow for their lost children).

Slkshock7's source wrote:

Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

Lost? How are your children lost? If you raised them well enough, they will have absorbed and enshrined in their personal moralities the things you value in people--i would assume compassion, kindness, good works, good cheer, friendship, love, etc. The second quote presents you with somewhat of a problem. If you want your children to have a "vital evangelical confidence in the Bible," then you are going to have to assure them that the strictures and injunctions of Leviticus are a good thing, that's it's OK to kill adulterers, that it's OK to kill homosexuals, that it's OK to kill unruly children--that in fact it's the duty of a good Christian. The alternative to that is to acknowledge that large parts of the Bible are allegorical, or that some parts of it are wrong, and once you question scripture, you've pretty well thrown the authority for your belief out the window. In stark terms, you're probably better off with your children not knowing just what the Bible says.

Casting this as a failure of ministry or of religious education, and constantly referring to things secular as a distasteful evil which has to be endured are two exercises in unreality. Ministry and religious education can do nothing to make the outrageous hatefulness, racism and bloody violence of the old testament palatable, and if it no longer appeals to people, there's damned good reasons. Once again, the alternative is to abandon the idea of inerrant, divinely inspired scripture. The "secular" world is simply the world, minus the obsessive focus on religion that some people bring to their contemplation of the world. I suggest that the author of the article has completely failed to properly construct a coherent analysis of why evangelical Christianity is increasing irrelevant in the contemporary world.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

cyclo wrote:

Personally, the concept that God is 'merciful, patient, loving, etc.' doesn't last one whit past the Book of Job.

Well, last I checked the book of Jonah (which I referred to in my earlier post) came after Job, so does the whole New Testament which repeatedly talks to the mercy, patience, and love of God.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The second quote presents you with somewhat of a problem. If you want your children to have a "vital evangelical confidence in the Bible," then you are going to have to assure them that the strictures and injunctions of Leviticus are a good thing, that's it's OK to kill adulterers, that it's OK to kill homosexuals, that it's OK to kill unruly children--that in fact it's the duty of a good Christian.

Not at all..those were the duties of a good ancient hebrew (with the exception of the killing of unruly children which has already been dealt with as incorrect). A Christian looks at the old testament law in light of the new testament revelation. Looking at only one or the other provides a false picture of God.

Setanta wrote:

The alternative to that is to acknowledge that large parts of the Bible are allegorical, or that some parts of it are wrong, and once you question scripture, you've pretty well thrown the authority for your belief out the window. In stark terms, you're probably better off with your children not knowing just what the Bible says.

No, the alternative is to acknowledge that large parts of the Bible are no longer operative because a different game is in play...

Look, throughout my education, I explored numbers extensively and eventually found out that they have very complex relationships to each other....relationships which are only revealed through concepts in math theory like probability and statistics, differential equations, number arrays, imaginary numbers and calculus. If I had stopped after learning only my artithmetic tables, I would never have learned the true nature of numbers.

Neither should one stop their Bible study after reading only certain books of the old testament and conclude they understand God.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

Did your later number theory studies disprove the earlier ones, while building upon them? If not, then I think your example is a little too different to be used here.

It is not clear to non-Christians why the Old Testament is included in the bible if, in fact, what is contained in it is not considered valid. It is also unclear to many of us non-Christians why Old Testament stories and information are selectively used to forward modern political and social positions, if they are not in fact considered valid.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

Not at all..those were the duties of a good ancient hebrew (with the exception of the killing of unruly children which has already been dealt with as incorrect). A Christian looks at the old testament law in light of the new testament revelation. Looking at only one or the other provides a false picture of God.

This is precisely what i am talking about. Either you dilute the force of scripture until it loses its authority, or you accept it as written, and all that it implies. From a scriptural point of view, you are clearly wrong.

Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 17-20, in the King James version:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Your boy Jesus is telling you that you must uphold the law as it is written, or you're not getting into heaven, and that is in the new testament, not the old.

Quote:

No, the alternative is to acknowledge that large parts of the Bible are no longer operative because a different game is in play...

Neither should one stop their Bible study after reading only certain books of the old testament and conclude they understand God.

Leaving aside your irrelevant remarks about mathematics, I suggest to you that you are either insufficiently educated about what the Bible says, or that you are willing to accept that not all of scripture is the inerrant, divinely inspired word of god. Clearly, your boy Jesus did not think it was "a different game," and the quote from Matthew is the evidence to that effect.

1 Reply

By the way, i notice that you have completely dodged my question about how your children have been "lost." Is this some kind of game, in which you are keeping score? Will god only love them if they attend a specific church, or can they get credit for attending any church at all? Are they lost if they cease to be strong adherents of evangelical Christian sects, or does being say, a Unitarian count? Who keeps score, and how do you know the standings?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Set,
You misunderstand the very passage you quoted...Jesus was saying He fulfills or completes the prophetic message begun in the Old Testatment. He offers a better and final solution to the problem of sin that was instituted in the Old Testament via animal sacrifice and the setting aside of a particular people for God's favor. He is certainly not arguing that one must follow His example AND the law...in fact this was one of the early arguments of the Christian church...Acts 10 is a lengthy story that relates Peter's own misunderstanding but eventual acceptance that strict adherence to the law is no longer operative in this new Christ-centric paradigm. Acts 15 describes another such situation where certain new Christians were arguing that non-Jewish Christians must be cirumcised...after some discussion the new church conceded that it was not necessary.

Acts 15:7 wrote:

"Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.

And later....

Acts 15:19 wrote:

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.

You've fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees that Jesus railed against time and time again. Remember His quote in Mark 2:27 that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"....and again in Luke 6:3 where He points out that David also violated the law...and again in Matt 12:2 where His disciples broke the Sabbath and He ends up chewing out the Pharisees not His disciples. Clearly, in Jesus' eyes, following the letter of the law is less important than following the spirit of the law.

Finally, you've made the common mistake that one must be good to earn his way into heaven. Actually a proper reading of Jesus' teaching and the New Testament reveals that doing your darndest to follow the law has nothing to do with getting into heaven. Look at John 1:17...it clearly talks to the "different game" we are under now.

John 1:17 wrote:

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ

This is re-emphasized in Romans 11:6 which again addresses the new game, as does Ephesians 2:8-9.

Romans 11:6 wrote:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace

Ephesians 2:8-9 wrote:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Taken as a whole, the Bible states that there is nothing you can do to get into heaven, it's simply God's favor on an undeserving individual.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I don't know for certain my children have been lost...only God knows for sure. All I know is that they are not attending church, they espouse beliefs that are not Christian and their answers to questions about Christianity do not indicate a proper understanding of the Bible.

There is no score to be kept...because it's only thru grace (God's favor) that anyone is saved.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

Taken as a whole, the Bible states that there is nothing you can do to get into heaven, it's simply God's favor on an undeserving individual.

Why should I wish for something I do not deserve? It defies any notion of fairness or justice that such a thing should happen.

If accepting God means accepting that all Earthly concepts (such as fairness and justice) are in fact null and void, does this not rob the meaning from one's life? I do not relish the idea of living for no other purpose than to exalt my creator. It is not a fulfilling concept. The very idea smacks of forced servitude, hardly an appealing thought.

And the converse to this exaltation, the idea that those who do not willingly submit shall spend eternity in damnation? It seems to give the lie to the original proposition.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

Quote:

You misunderstand the very passage you quoted...Jesus was saying He fulfills or completes the prophetic message begun in the Old Testatment.

Yes, i know this dodge that Christians, uncomfortable with the idea that they would be subject to Jewish law, always use to try to wiggle out from under their obligation as your boy Jesus stated it. Let me run verses 17 and 18 by you again.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Your statement patently denies what those verses say. I can only come to the conclusion that, uncomfortable with what scripture actually says, you are either willing to ignore those passages which make you uncomfortable, or you are willing to delude yourself about the meaning.

I have made no mistake about "earning your way into heaven." For my own part, i consider the very idea of heaven, of "pie in the sky by and by when you die" to be so much hogwash to console the gullible. Your boy Jesus told you that the kingdom of heaven lies within you. I was just pointing out that in verse 20, your boy Jesus says:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now, i don't consider "the kingdom of heaven" to be a place to pass some afterlife. Given what is written about your boy Jesus, the kingdom of heaven which one would enter, one would enter within oneself, and that one must be righteous in adherence to the law to do so.

Apart from that, you quote to me passages of the extraneous books of the new testament, none of which purport to record the actual words of your boy Jesus. Those are meaningless if you attempt to use them to contradict what he is reported to have actually said.

I really don't need you to attempt to teach me what scripture means. I've read scripture, the Bible in its entirety, many times. I was never engaged in an exercise of attempting to use scripture to justify what i wanted to believe. Therefore, i take scripture at face value. Based on what scripture actually alleges that your boy Jesus said, you are bound by the law, and that includes Leviticus. Too bad, so sad if that is unpleasant for you.

Which takes us back to the subject of the thread. Evangelic Christianity increasingly marginalizes itself because it cannot reconcile scripture with the values of contemporary society, and it is increasingly identified with an unyieldingly fierce and cruel view of god and the relationship of man to that god.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Don't you find yourself yawning Set when you keep repeating this "your boy Jesus" phrase. It is as if you are not only trying to bore everybody to death but also trying to alienate that large majority of the population to whom Jesus is a beacon of hope in world of desolation and disgust.

A bit like Pantsdown Dawkins is your beacon of hope.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Set - You speak quite eloquently everything I wanted to say here.

SLK - I'm not going to hold your hand through the resolution you must make here. Your religion is very permissive of rape, slavery and murder. That part was not up for debate. All that was left was for everyday followers to decide if they would believe in it or not. You are not given the option to deny. It is a matter of your own sacred document's letter.

As Set so perfectly (much better than I could ever in terms of specifics) outlined, you are given a choice in what you believe, but believing in the bible comes at a cost since the claim is that it is the inherent and divine word of God. If it is divine, you are not allowed to teach as you please, you much teach it all, including the rape, slavery, and murder.

You are asked to choose between what you know is right and what you think is divinely written.

No more gymnastics.

You have become the perfect example as to why evangelical Christianity will lose it's relevance.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Apart from that, you quote to me passages of the extraneous books of the new testament, none of which purport to record the actual words of your boy Jesus. Those are meaningless if you attempt to use them to contradict what he is reported to have actually said.

So let me get this straight...you want me to ignore thousands of years of Biblical interpretation in order to accept Set's interpretation of Jesus' words in one passage of the Bible. At the same time, I must ignore all other words and actions of Jesus where He Himself subordinated and ignored the law (Matt 12:2, Matt 15:1, Matt 19:8, John 8:1-11, John 9:16). Furthermore, I must toss out most of the other books of the New Testament because they aren't the actual words of Jesus and contradict Set's interpretation. Furthermore, despite the fact that I can't use or live by the teachings of large chunks of the New Testament (according to Set), I MUST use and live by the teachings of the Old Testament.

Well, you got me there, Set. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

That's bullshit and you know it. In Matthew, Chapter 12, your boy Jesus states that he is the son of Man, and that he, himself, is therefore above the law--Verse 8, in the King James Version: For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. He doesn't say that you are free to ignore the law, he says that he, as the "son of man" is lord "even of the sabbath day." When the Pharisees charge him with violating the sabbath by healing, he states that he is fulfilling the prophecy of Esaias. You're cherry-picking your verses to attempt by inference to say that you are exempted the law, but that is not what Matthew, Chapter 12 says. In Matthew, Chapter 15, the Pharisees accuse him of transgressing tradition, not the law, and your boy Jesus replies that their traditions transgress the laws of God. That passage does not exempt you from the observance of the law. In John, Chaper 8, the incident of the woman accused of adultery, he does not call for the law to be ignored, he simply calls for those among them who are without sin to cast the first stone. Nothing in that passage exempts you from the law. In John, Chapter 9, your boy Jesus once again points out that he is "the son of man" and the discussion between the Pharisees and the formerly blind man turns upon whether or not he who has healed him (Jesus) is a sinner. Nothing in John, Chapter 9 exempts you from the law.

As for ignoring thousands of years of "Biblical interpretation," i'm simply pointing out passages which can be accepted at face value, and don't require interpretation. You want to interpret them because you want to justify your point of view; not because the passages say what you claim, but because they don't, but you want to suggest that they mean what you want to believe.

As for the other books of the New Testament, i don't say you should throw them out, but i do point out that they are the words of men who lived after your boy Jesus, and don't have the same authority as what it is alleged that your boy Jesus did say. Not long after the great snake-oil salesman, Saul of Tarsus, the alleged "Saint" Paul, took up the Jesus cult, he was confronted with the unwillingness of Greeks and Hellenized inhabitants of the middle east to accept circumcision as the price for joining the cult. Ever since that time, Christians have been hemming and hawing and temporising about what laws they will follow and which they will ignore, for sake of their own convenience. I am not asking you to accept an interpretation from me. I am just pointing out what scripture actually says, not what you wish it said.

You suggest that we can throw out all of the books of the old testament, because that divine son-of-bitch, the god of the old testament, is an embarrassment to you. Cast the beam from your own eye before you clean the mote from mine.

I don't say that any Christian should live in any certain manner, or that they should pay attention to any certain portion of scripture while ignoring others. I'm just pointing out that anyone who claims that scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant, but who choose to "interpret" scripture, and who chooses to ignore certain sections of it while adhering to others is being hypocritical. And that is a principle reason for the decaying reputation of evangelical Christians--the hypocrisy which they represent.

Here ya go, here's a little more Matthew for ya (Chapter 23, verse 27):

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In Matthew, Chapter 12, your boy Jesus states that he is the son of Man, and that he, himself, is therefore above the law--Verse 8, in the King James Version: For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. He doesn't say that you are free to ignore the law, he says that he, as the "son of man" is lord "even of the sabbath day." When the Pharisees charge him with violating the sabbath by healing, he states that he is fulfilling the prophecy of Esaias. You're cherry-picking your verses to attempt by inference to say that you are exempted the law, but that is not what Matthew, Chapter 12 says.

You've totally ignored the story Jesus quotes about David. The reason Jesus brought it up was because this was in direct conflict to the Pharisees' understanding of what it meant to follow the law. Despite the law requiring the bread be eaten only by priests, Jesus holds David blameless for breaking that law. He also holds guiltless the priests which "profane the Sabbath". Why? Because God wants "mercy not sacrifice", in other words, God doesn't want a strict adherence to the law...He wants one to follow the broader principles (love of God and neighbor) from which the law was derived. This same principle is reinforced again in John 9 wherein Jesus once again heals on the Sabbath much to the chagrin of the Pharisees. One sees it again in Matt 15 although the context is, as you stated, more on Pharisiacal tradition than the law.

RE: John 8. The law clearly states that an adulter must be stoned. Jesus ignored or at least offered a new understanding of the law because, as you stated, only those who were without sin were permitted to cast the first stone. Jesus was the only person that fit that criteria but even He did not pick up a stone. Instead He permitted a violation of the law to occur without penalty, said he would not condemn her and only urged the woman to "sin no more". For at least adultery, Jesus apparently no longer accepts stoning as a penalty despite the clear admonishment from the law to do so. Jesus has effectively negated a portion of the law, and established a new higher standard for judgement.

Setanta wrote:

As for the other books of the New Testament, i don't say you should throw them out, but i do point out that they are the words of men who lived after your boy Jesus, and don't have the same authority as what it is alleged that your boy Jesus did say.

Well, I accept all Scripture as inerrant and infallible....therefore, all books of the Bible are equally authoritative (God-breathed and all...). Just because four of the books (which were also written by men, the way) happen to quote Jesus, doesn't make them any more authoritative.

Quote:

You suggest that we can throw out all of the books of the old testament

No, I never suggested that..I believe the words I used were "the game has changed" and I stand by that.

Quote:

I'm just pointing out that anyone who claims that scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant, but who choose to "interpret" scripture, and who chooses to ignore certain sections of it while adhering to others is being hypocritical.

There is nothing wrong with interpreting scripture....Jesus did it all the time, explaining to the folks around Him what various OT scripture really meant, not what it literally meant or how priests interpreted it. Other than that, I concur with your statement.

0 Replies

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 as it is understood (very poorly) by its adherents. Which is my point, and has been my point all along. 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 didn't say that there is anything wrong with "interpreting" scripture, i was just pointing out two things. One is that the passage from Matthew, Chapter 5 is a direct statement, and that is not a case of interpretation. The other is that when one begins to "interpret" scripture, one has admitted a priori that it is ambiguous, and that is the thin end of the wedge which dislodges scripture from its authoritarian pedestal.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The other is that when one begins to "interpret" scripture, one has admitted a priori that it is ambiguous, and that is the thin end of the wedge which dislodges scripture from its authoritarian pedestal.

Out of curiosity, I have thought of a counter-argument, Setanta. The U.S. Constitution is also being constantly interpreted. Does that lessen its authority?

2 Replies

The situations are not analogous, Wandel . . . unless you're saying the constitution is the divinely inspired revealed truth of god . . . in which case, i've got a bridge you might be interested in purchasing . . .

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Setanta wrote:
The other is that when one begins to "interpret" scripture, one has admitted a priori that it is ambiguous, and that is the thin end of the wedge which dislodges scripture from its authoritarian pedestal.

Out of curiosity, I have thought of a counter-argument, Setanta. The U.S. Constitution is also being constantly interpreted. Does that lessen its authority?

The Constitution doesn't claim to be perfect, only to be a step towards perfection.

The constitution can be amended too.
K
O

0 Replies

The impending death of evangelical Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know