8
   

The impending death of evangelical Christianity?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 04:16 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
The U.S. Constitution is also being constantly interpreted. Does that lessen its authority?


Yes it does.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 06:16 am
@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.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 07:30 am
@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?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 08:42 am
@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
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 08:46 am
@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....
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 09:04 am
@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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 09:18 am
@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
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 10:05 am
As regards the topic of the thread, i'd say that evangelicals have **** 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
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 10:31 am
@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?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:00 pm
@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
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:11 pm
@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?
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 07:53 pm
@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).
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 12:57 am
@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
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 06:39 am
@slkshock7,
if man and women are equal then why do you require one of each in marriage?
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 11:06 am
@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.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 03:04 pm
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 -

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3620/3349799360_dfb0335be8.jpg?v=0

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 11:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What the cat wants to see...
http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ceiling_cat.jpg
What the cat actually sees...
http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/ceiling_cat_is_watching_you.jpg

This is religion
K
O
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 11:57 pm
@Diest TKO,
Haha, I've put together several ceiling cats for my friends in the last few months, it's a great one!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 07:52 am
@slkshock7,
So you require a fertility test before marriage?

That kind of goes against the idea that men and women are equal for God, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
ecorob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2010 04:05 pm
@JPB,
I think you may want to take some remedial courses on American History...and use history books that actually objectively report history and haven't been purposefully and zealously 'updated' to omit key fundamental things. The absence of these 'things' during your education on American History would lend to the only plausible scenario which might allow you to support your line of reasoning here ...and do so with a clear conscience. If you take the time to compare what older history books say to what the liberal driven publishers pass off today as an objective account of history (or of biology too, for that matter) I think you'll be baffled as to what gave people the right and audacity to rewrite our country's history - omitting things at will so as to make it comfortably fit their current liberal ideologies and agendas.

We left England to escape what was essentially a tyrannical theocracy and came up with a brilliant balanced system of government designed among other things specifically to avoid having a theocracy. The verbiage of this, as well as a letter from Thos. Jefferson (to some concerned influential folks in Danbury, CT), is continually being twisted into what is now routinely called 'the separation of Church and State' (but is not found in any such context -as groups such as the ACLU would have you believe is stated as such - in our Constitution).

That being said, there is not some undermining 'movement' by Christians to 'impose' anything on America. What you see happening - if one takes in a broader, more objective slice of history than what network television and entities like the History Channel have to offer- is a reclamation of what was once not only accepted, embraced, admired and normal but more importantly ARE and always have been the foundational concepts that our country was built upon.

Christianity's influence was not only noticed and applauded back in our country's early days -when Alexis de Tocqueville visited in 1831 and was so impressed with what he saw that he went home and wrote * Democracy in America*. Concerning religion in America, he said "On my arrival in the U.S. the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things" He described the situation this way- "Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the 1st of their political institutions;.... I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion - for who can know a man's heart? - but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to a whole nation and to every rank of society"

He also wrote about what he saw in our schools. In what is now a liberal 'mutual-admiration' society - New England - de Tocqueville observed this: In New England every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of the Constitution. In the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all of these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon."

Does that sound to you like a rare situation being reported on with bias?

This might seem like extreme conjecture to you if your opening comment is is an accurate assessment of your view of the role of Christianity in American history and governance but that was a 'only' a foreigner's opinion from 1831, after all. (You really should look up Mr. de Tocqueville and see for yourself if his opinions were taken lightly world-wide) This may be equally as hard to swallow but it was not so long ago when Christianity's positive influence on society was much highly applauded. In 1952, a strong civil libertarian - U.S. Supreme Court Justice presided over the Zorach v. Clauson case. He stated 'We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being (notice the capital letters) ...When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities...it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature or our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.

There was no 'rampant theocratic drive for political control' on anyone's part - unless you add the secular humanist/atheist movement to your potential list of culprits. They really kicked into gear - apart from linking arms with Darwinists and Margaret Sanger and the ACLU (the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union) - about a decade after Justice Douglas reaffirmed the overall deep-rooted Christian heritage and belief of the American people. They rampantly (sound familiar?), methodically, and diabolically went about dismantling and perverting our nation through key court cases while banking on the relative apathy of an unsuspecting, overly-trustful American heartland. The astonishing reversal by the Supreme Court in 1962's Engel v. Vitale and 1963's Abington v. Shempp declared that prayer and Bible reading in public schools were to be outlawed...opening Pandora's box. In case after case, liberal justices - fueled by social pressures from very vocal yet very small minorities - repeatedly made rulings against the traditional values of our country. This erosion culminated in 1973's Roe v. Wade....constitutionally protecting those choosing to kill humans at the earliest stages of life. This was followed by a sickening case by case erosion of our country's moral foundations.

Now I'm going to do my best to not club you with the idiocy of self-contradicting sentence you've led off your second paragraph with because that wouldn't be nice. Besides, despite the continuing struggles you have with sentence structure as you continue, you do bring out a valid point about how faith-based organizations are on the ball when it comes to helping people in need...though I've yet to see any atheist organizations (atheism is a religion too) be first or last (or anywhere in-between) on the scene in a disaster relief situation.

In closing, I just want to say that you , my friend , have it backwards entirely. This is a nation being steamrolled by liberal 'heavy-equipment' and subversion tactics and Christians are merely fighting back. There's plenty of us that screw up all the time and don't live like a person who doesn't understand the nature of sin and the Bible itself thinks we should live but that doesn't detract from what this country was founded upon - Christian principles. If you want to base your opinions on a few anomalies like pedophile priests and homosexual pastors, that's your prerogative and your right..but it doesn't make it right. Do your homework. Start by reading the Constitution.

God Bless

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:54:48