Ep. 100: What makes you a Christian

[cleve]

mitch wrote:

but only that this was the first clear theological definition of Christian belief

But why not go with the apostle's creed, which appears to predate the Nicene creed by around a century or so?

Equinox

Equinox,
What is your reason for showing preference to the apostle's creed? What keeps you from opting for the bible, as shown through Paul's gospel (which was written earlier - ca. 60-62 A.D. - than either the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed). The administration of grace was given to the apostle Paul for us gentiles. For further clarification, here's what Ephesians 3:2 says: Surely, you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me [Paul] for you [gentiles], ...

[mitchellmckain]

mitch wrote:

but only that this was the first clear theological definition of Christian belief

But why not go with the apostle's creed, which appears to predate the Nicene creed by around a century or so?

Equinox

Actually it is not even known for certain that it is earlier. Its earliest appearance in writing is in 390. But the most important difference is that it is not known where it came from and who actually approved or believed what it said at what time. For all we know, the tradition of this being an earlier creed could simply be a story told by those who wanted to promote it over the Nicene creed.

I can see why you might like it if you have a non-Trinitarian understanding of God like the Jehova Witnesses or the Unitarians. On the other had you might see why I am not so excited by the Apostles creed with its emphasis on the virgin birth and the resurrection of the body - although this creed does not exclude me decisively. However, I absoluely do not believe in a physical resurrection and I do not think that this is consistent with scripture. There is a bodily resurrection but it is to a spiritual body according to Paul in 1 Cor 15. However, the Apostle's creed does not use the word "physical", so this does not exclude me decisively. As for the other issue, I have no problem with Mary being a virgin at the time of Jesus conception and birth, but I do not believe that it is possible or even makes sense for there to be no physical father of Jesus, though this is not such a big deal for me.

There is no doubt that the virgin birth was believed in the 2nd century. What is not known is how universal the belief was. The resurrection was certainly believed by the Pharisees and supported by Jesus Himself, but it is also clear that Jesus spoke of two kinds of life and death - that of the spirit and that of the body, such as in Luke 9:60 when He said, "Let the dead bury their own dead".

P.S. Maybe the question you should ask me is why I like the Trinitarian doctrine. You might find the answer to that one very interesting.

[yjoeyh]

I will at least at this, from Augustine's own hand:

Again, I'm not arguing that that he didn't endorse extreme measures, or even that those measures were not unethical or illogical. That's not the point. It's when you imply that Augustine drastically shifted his position from being an outspoken critic of torture and genuine threats of death, to one that openly embraced and encouraged it, that's a major misrepresentation. He clearly maintained that torture and executions were inherently evil acts. His view of their necessity is an entirely different issue.

Here's an example of a later writing that shows that he still considered such measures evil and unreliable, even if they might be considered justifiable.
For human society, which he thinks it a wickedness to abandon, constrains him and compels him to this duty. And he thinks it no wickedness that innocent witnesses are tortured regarding the crimes of which other men are accused; or that the accused are put to the torture, so that they are often overcome with anguish, and, though innocent, make false confessions regarding themselves, and are punished; or that, though they be not condemned to die, they often die during, or in consequence of, the torture; or that sometimes the accusers, who perhaps have been prompted by a desire to benefit society by bringing criminals to justice, are themselves condemned through the ignorance of the judge, because they are unable to prove the truth of their accusations though they are true, and because the witnesses lie, and the accused endures the torture without being moved to confession. These numerous and important evils he does not consider sins; for the wise judge does these things, not with any intention of doing harm, but because his ignorance compels him, and because human society claims him as a judge. But though we therefore acquit the judge of malice, we must none the less condemn human life as miserable. And if he is compelled to torture and punish the innocent because his office and his ignorance constrain him, is he a happy as well as a guiltless man? Surely it were proof of more profound considerateness and finer feeling were he to recognize the misery of these necessities, and shrink from his own implication in that misery; and had he any piety about him, he would cry to God From my necessities deliver me.
Augustine, City of God, Book 19, Chapter 6. (418-422)

Um, no. That doesn't state that they accept biblical criticism.

What else could the possibly mean by "to the extent that they faithfully represent the originals?" Clearly this indicates that there is a question at hand as to what is accurately representative and what is not. What else do you think it could mean?

It's clear that they reject the majority of objective scholarship on the texts, which have agree that the original manuscripts are beyond being able to be known "with great accuracy", that many of them are forgeries, that no one who saw Jesus alive likely wrote anything in the Bibles, and so on.

The "majority of objective scholarship?" Really? That's some pretty big claims your making. Do you have anything to back that up... "objectively?"

I see all of them as equally tied to a literalistic, inerrant view of scripture.

Well I can't argue with how you see them but I can tell you what I know about them is that they are far from being tied to a literalistic, inerrant view of scripture. Do you realize that no Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, Catholic or Church of Christ churches made your list? Are these the ones you are considering "liberal/moderate?"
Remember that "growth" rates don't in any way equate to actual shares of the population, or specifically in the current representation of Christianity. Your original point is vanishing amidst the data you say supports it, that Christianity views atheism as a crime deserving of eternal torture, that radical fundamentalism is on the rise, that Christianity is even polarizing to begin with, OR that this is an issue that deserves our highest level of focus.

[Equinox]

Cleve wrote:

Equinox,

What is your reason for showing preference to the apostle's creed? What keeps you from opting for the bible...?

Actually, I don't prefer any creeds. In the context of the conversation, Mitch was claiming the Nicene creed as authoritative because it is, as he put it, "the earliest creed with the largest consensus (sic)". I was pointing out that plenty are earlier, and that the "largest" majority or popularity has plenty of other contenders too, and that none of them were ever agreed upon by all Christians. That's my point. I personally don't use any of them, or see any as authoritative, (I'm not a Christian, remember).

Opting for the Bible (or, more accurately, for one of the many different Bibles) isn't an option because different sections don't fit with other sections, and Bibles each have hundreds of thousands of words, which makes recitation cumbersome. That's why christians throughout history have felt the need to make creeds - because the Bibles by themselves are too self-negating to be clear, and are too long anyway. If one of the Bibles worked as a simple and straightforward creed, then Christian creeds would never have been formulated.

Mitch wrote:

Actually it is not even known for certain that it is earlier. Its earliest appearance in writing is in 390.

Some place it over 100 years or more before the Nicene creed, but I agree that it's date is not clear. My point, as we saw in our earlier discussion, is that there are many creeds, all of them written to exclude some Christians, because there have always been many different and contradictory Christianities, with at least some members of each saying that the others aren't Christian, and that they've all made creeds or changed the meaning of existing creeds to fit their views.
Thus, picking one over the others is arbitrary, and usually done to promote one's own Christianity over others' Christianities. That's OK, I suppose, to me, as long as done openly. What I object to is when a Christian picks a creed to promote their own personal Christianity, then argues that the creed they chose is the One True Christianity, and not simply their own personal choice. So when a creed comes up, I hope that someone championing one creed over the others will either be honest and admit that their choice is mostly driven by them wanting to promote their personal beliefs, or simply not use a creed to exclude other Christians in the first place. Another common action is to exclude other Christians because they don't fit the creed chosen to do exactly that, while denying that anyone is excluding Christians by claiming that they are not Christians in the first place, according to the creed chosen to exclude them. That's about as circular as reasoning can get.

P.S. Maybe the question you should ask me is why I like the Trinitarian doctrine. You might find the answer to that one very interesting.

It sounds like you'd like to tell us. Sounds good. Why do you like the idea of the trinity?

[Equinox]

Joey wrote:

Again, I'm not arguing that that he (Augustine) didn't endorse extreme measures, or even that those measures were not unethical or illogical. That's not the point. It's when you imply that Augustine drastically shifted his position from being an outspoken critic of torture and genuine threats of death, to one that openly embraced and encouraged it, that's a major misrepresentation. He clearly maintained that torture and executions were inherently evil acts. His view of their necessity is an entirely different issue.

Um, “necessity”? The fact that they are being done in response to what many of us here see as an imaginary hell doesn’t, in reality, make them any less evil. The fact it was Christianity that caused him to advocate torture and conversion at the point of a sword in no way excuses it – any more than if it were motivated by Islam, Zoroastrianism, or pure hate. Again we see, in spades, that the logical implications of Christianity lead to atrocities, something proven again and again, century after century, from Augustine in the 400s to John List and others in the 1900s. As Voltaire reminded us, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."

Your whole post shows that we agree on the fact that Augustine advocated the use of terror and compulsion to get religious conversion. What justification was used is simply window dressing.

The "majority of objective scholarship?" Really? That's some pretty big claims your making. Do you have anything to back that up... "objectively?"

By “objective”, I mean something like “based on the evidence, and not driven by religious ideology.” Biblical criticism is obviously a huge topic, but my point is by assuming that the text is the word of God, that the original form can be known with great accuracy, and that the text must give a unified message, they make it impossible for themselves to look at anything objectively. This makes them reject things that are agreed on by most scholars, such as the idea that the pastorals are forgeries. I’m not sure what claim you are asking for support of, so I’ll give support for the idea that the pastoral are forgeries, because that is probably sufficient for my point that those who you say are using “textural criticism” are doing so without objectivity. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Pastorals.htm

Well I can't argue with how you see them but I can tell you what I know about them is that they are far from being tied to a literalistic, inerrant view of scripture. Do you realize that no Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, Catholic or Church of Christ churches made your list? Are these the ones you are considering "liberal/moderate?"

OK, so are you saying that JWs, Mormons and SDA tend to use a metaphorical interpretation? I guess I’m not sure what you are asserting here. Maybe listing the original 5 “fundamentals” that gave us the term “fundamentalism” would be useful:

• The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
All the fundamentalist churches hold to these.

Remember that "growth" rates don't in any way equate to actual shares of the population, or specifically in the current representation of Christianity.

Of course not. That’s why I posted that data too, and the fact that these are the top 25 churches by order of total membership shows that we are talking about significant portions.

Your original point is vanishing amidst the data you say supports it, that Christianity views atheism as a crime deserving of eternal torture, that radical fundamentalism is on the rise, that Christianity is even polarizing to begin with, OR that this is an issue that deserves our highest level of focus.

Again, I claimed that Christianity is polarizing, with liberal Christians leaving their churches to either become fundamentalists or to become non-Christians. If that were true, then the more fundamentalist churches would be growing, and the most moderate/liberal shrinking, and the % of non Christians growing. Now, looking at the data, we see that the top growing churches are

4.4 Jehovah's Wit (fundamentalist)
4.3 Seventh Day Adventist (fundamentalist)
1.42 Mormon LDS (fundamentalist)
0.57 Catholic (growth due to immigration, not fundamentalist)
0.52 Assmb of God (fundamentalist)
0.42 Southern Baptist (fundamentalist)
0.38 Church of God (fundamentalist)

Now, the top shrinking churches:

-1 Methodist UMC (modern, not fundamentalist)
-1.08 Lutheran LCMS (modern, not fundamentalist)
-1.5 Am Bapt. (I’m not sure about this one, if they are fundamentalist or not)
-1.96 Lutheran ELCA (modern, not fundamentalist)
-2.5 Episcopal (modern, not fundamentalist)
-2.6 Presbyterian (PCUSA) (modern, not fundamentalist)
-2.8 United Church of Christ UCC (modern, not fundamentalist)

And non-Christians are increasing rapidly, to around 30 million today from just 15 million or so in 1990.

Do not all those data fit the prediction?

Of course, whether or not you care is up to you.

Equinox

[yjoeyh]

Joey wrote:

His view of their necessity is an entirely different issue.

Um, “necessity”? The fact that they are being done in response to what many of us here see as an imaginary hell doesn’t, in reality, make them any less evil.

Of course not. That’s why I said it was “another issue entirely.” If you take hell off the table, none of it makes sense to begin with. I agree with you completely there, at least hypothetically.

The fact it was Christianity that caused him to advocate torture and conversion at the point of a sword in no way excuses it – any more than if it were motivated by Islam, Zoroastrianism, or pure hate.

Isn’t that pretty much what I said?

Your whole post shows that we agree on the fact that Augustine advocated the use of terror and compulsion to get religious conversion.

It also shows that you exaggerated your point, and you continue to do so here by saying he “advocated” it, implying it was solely to “get conversion.” You missed the entire point and latched on to one admittedly bad idea.

By “objective”, I mean something like “based on the evidence, and not driven by religious ideology.”
…. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Pastorals.htm

Yes that’s a good definition. Too bad it ruins your point though because the “majority of objective scholarship” does not agree with you. Now, the majority could still be wrong, but you are definitely wrong if you say that they view these texts as forgeries. What you’re seemingly trying to imply is that objective means that they accept your presuppositions which necessitate that the texts MUST BE forgeries, since that is the only valid explanation for them given your assumptions. But that’s not objective. That’s prejudicial.
Now what your cited reference reveals is the straw man in your argument. By showing that Paul is not the mechanical author of these epistles not only fails to prove your point that they are considered “forgeries” it shows what a ridiculous argument it is to begin with. The Bible itself affirms that Paul was not the mechanical author of all of his epistles, and even calls attention to the rare occasions when he did write on his own. (Galatians 6:11, 2 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Thess. 3:17, Colossian 4:18, Philemon 1:19.)When you introduce the ideas of “forgeries” you are once again exaggerating the nature of the evidence which reveals a bias against the data and just like you say, it’s NOT objective. You may not be basing your conclusions on “religious” ideologies, but you are basing them on ideologies none the less, and NOT on the evidence.

my point is by assuming that the text is the word of God, that the original form can be known with great accuracy, and that the text must give a unified message, they make it impossible for themselves to look at anything objectively.

If you are arguing for perfect objectivity, I agree with you, however, no one can be perfectly objective. I do think it’s reasonable that a person can make these kinds of assumptions and still be practically objective.

OK, so are you saying that JWs, Mormons and SDA tend to use a metaphorical interpretation?

No that wasn’t what I was talking about. I was addressing the irony that you would consider them “fundamentalists” when these in particular reject many the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. That’s not really an important point. It’s really just semantics. You can call them “fundy” if you like. Just know that my idea of fundamentalists is something else entirely.

Maybe listing the original 5 “fundamentals” that gave us the term “fundamentalism” would be useful:
• The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
All the fundamentalist churches hold to these.

By this definition, I’m certainly not a fundamentalist. I don’t think that many churches out there are either, again using this as the guidelines. This comes from some early 20th century statement by some overly-zealous Christian group, and has nothing specifically to do with fundamental Christian doctrines. This is not really what any of the churches you go on to list base their doctrines upon.
I take issue with the first and last one. The three in the middle are fundamentals. It doesn’t follow that “inspiration” yields “inerrancy,” or I least I don’t see how it does. Many “fundamentalist” and “conservative” churches do not have that kind of language in their statements of belief. Also, I may believe in the “historical reality of Christ’s miracles” but I think that’s pretty anecdotal and not really an important aspect of Christianity. It wouldn’t affect much of anything if it turned out Jesus never performed any miracles at all outside of his resurrection. I don’t know of ANY churches who use that kind of language in their statements of belief.

Do not all those data fit the prediction?

It only fits if you use your definitions of “fundamentalist” churches. But you HAVE to use your definition in order to bring “Christianity” into the discussion. That’s where you are making the mistake. The ones that are higher on the list are generally more and more on the fringe of Christianity and less and less adhere to the core fundamental Christian beliefs. So sure, there is a polarization going on, but you can’t say that it’s Christianity that is polarizing based on that data. If that were true, the scale would almost need to be turned upside down. Think about what you are suggesting. On one ‘pole’ you have non-fundamental churches and on the other ‘pole’ you have fundamentalists and non-Christians? Really? Don’t you think the data more suggests that both fundamentalists and non-Christians are making a better sales pitch?

[Emery]

Thanks Rubstrol. My greatest example of a teaching by Jesus that I think is immoral is hell. Even if all the rest of the stuff is golden, this is enough to derail the Jesus-was-moral train, don't you think?

So much for Emery's claim, "I can accept Christians simply see things differently than I do, and that's it. I do not have to assign any moral judgment to their opinion." He just assigned a moral judgement simply based on an aspect of Christian belief alone. I am not immoral just because I happen to disagree with Emery on this issue any more than Jesus is. If hell exists then a belief it exists is simply correct not immoral and if hell does not exist then the belief is simply incorrect not immoral.

Knowing something of Emery's complaints in regards to hell, perhaps what he means is immoral is believing that people will go to hell just because they believe the wrong things. I still think this suffers from the same problem as above, and I no matter how much I also despise that belief, I must deny that any belief is in of itself is immoral, but regardless I see no evidence of such a belief in Jesus at all. Perhaps Emery might rephrase this a bit more to say that creating a place to torture people for believing contrary to certain demands is immoral. Well then finally I would agree, and we could likewise agree that those who believe in such a god that has done this, believe in an immoral god -- but again I don't think that we can say that having such a belief makes them immoral.

In reflecting upon what I have just written, I realized that Emery is guilty of the very thing that he sees as reprehensible, deciding that people are immoral for believing the "wrong things". The only difference is that Christians believe that immorality has consequences that cannot be escape by the death of the body, which is where the belief in hell comes in.

Mitch, I'm replying to this here because it's more relevant to this thread (it came from Requests and Complaints).

First, I don't have to assign a moral judgment to a Christian's opinion, but I can choose to do so. The Christian, however, does not have that choice. For example, when it comes to an atheist's unbelief, Christians must concur with their God's judgment of that unbelief whether they want to or not. They cannot merely say, "that's cool, we just disagree." They have to add "and furthermore, you will be punished for that opinion, and deservedly so."

Second, the discussion was about a divine Jesus, and not a human (you'll note in my post that I would judge Jesus differently were he just a "man of his times"). My views on Jesus' teachings on hell come with the understanding that he created the place. Therefore his opinions on hell co-exist with his actions to create it, and the circumstances that send people there. That is not so with the Christian, so you cannot conflate comments I make about a purportedly divine Jesus with those I make about Christians.

[mitchellmckain]

First, I don't have to assign a moral judgment to a Christian's opinion, but I can choose to do so. The Christian, however, does not have that choice.

I don't think that even makes any sense let alone that it is true, but even if it were true then I think we can only hold people responsible for what they actually choose. We must hold you responsible for your choice to assign such a moral judgement and not those who "have no such choice". Trying to make sense this claim that they "have no choice" in this and that sounds to me like it is not a moral judgement, but simply a statement of the way things are.

For example, when it comes to an atheist's unbelief, Christians must concur with their God's judgment of that unbelief whether they want to or not.

Why? You think that man cannot disagree with God? That we cannot argue with Him? Surely you are aware of the stories in the Bible that show this to be false. No. Of course Christians have a choice, just like everyone else. That is what free will is all about.

They cannot merely say, "that's cool, we just disagree." They have to add "and furthermore, you will be punished for that opinion, and deservedly so."

But you are incorrect. I am a Christian and I most definitely assert that we just disagree and that you will NOT be punished for having a different opinion.

I do not believe that heaven and hell are about either punishments or beliefs, but about whether we choose to face the consequences of our choices alone or with the help of God.

Even for those who do believe that heaven and hell are about punishments and beliefs, the punishments are not for the difference of beliefs. Christian teaching makes it absolutely clear the everyone deserves condemnation for sin, and acknowledging this is required before their is any hope at all.

Is it not simple common sense that we cannot even begin learn from our mistakes and change unless we first acknowledge that they are mistakes? Is it immoral to say that there are consequences to refusing to believe that one has made a mistake? Is it not simple common sense that we cannot solve some problems without help? Is it immoral to say that there are consequences to refusing the help of someone with the ability to help you?

Second, the discussion was about a divine Jesus, and not a human (you'll note in my post that I would judge Jesus differently were he just a "man of his times"). My views on Jesus' teachings on hell come with the understanding that he created the place. Therefore his opinions on hell co-exist with his actions to create it, and the circumstances that send people there.

No, the belief that God created hell and the belief that God sends people to hell does not follow from the belief that hell exists or from the claim that God is teaching about hell.

So your moral judgement in this manner is based on quite a tower of assumptions. None of which you can establish establish from the things which Jesus actually said. This frankly amounts to judging a person based on what OTHER people choose to believe, which is also reprehensible. As I said above you can say that the "god" these gnostic legalists believe in, because of such beliefs, is immoral and I would agree with you. But this gnostic legalism does not equate to Christianity and it does not follow from their belief in a god that is immoral, that they themselves are immoral.

That is not so with the Christian, so you cannot conflate comments I make about a purportedly divine Jesus with those I make about Christians.

So I was right that your comments are actually directed towards a particular god believed by some of the people who call themselves Christian. As I said before, as long as this is made clear then I have no objection. So let's restate this for clarity: those who believe in a god who created a hell to torture people for simply not believing certain things for which he provides no objective evidence, believe in a god that is immoral, no matter what name they might give to this god of theirs. With this I certainly agree.

[Emery]

Why? You think that man cannot disagree with God? That we cannot argue with Him? Surely you are aware of the stories in the Bible that show this to be false. No. Of course Christians have a choice, just like everyone else. That is what free will is all about.

If Christians believe God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, why would they disagree with God’s moral decisions?

But you are incorrect. I am a Christian and I most definitely assert that we just disagree and that you will NOT be punished for having a different opinion.

The opinion we’re discussing is belief, and belief in God is a prerequisite to salvation once a person has been exposed to the Gospel. I understand you may not take this position, but this is the majority position among Christians. My observations are made in the context of mainstream Christian doctrine. Inasmuch as a position is not in the mainstream, my arguments may not apply.

Is it immoral to say that there are consequences to refusing to believe that one has made a mistake?

Depends on what the consequence is. If my child is careless and tramples the petunias, a moral consequence could be that there will be no more flowers for her to enjoy. An immoral consequence would be for me to lock the door for 3 days and not allow her to come inside because she trampled the petunias. I think hell is more like the latter, but it seems you find it is more like the former.

Is it immoral to say that there are consequences to refusing the help of someone with the ability to help you?

Again, it depends on the consequences. I see Christianity teaching active consequences such as wrath, condemnation, judgment, and banishment from God toward those that do not accept the Gospel message, and I find those consequences generally immoral. It seems you believe in more passive consequences.

No, the belief that God created hell and the belief that God sends people to hell does not follow from the belief that hell exists or from the claim that God is teaching about hell.

Again, I follow the mainstream Christian idea that God created hell for the devil and his angels, and for humans that do not accept the Christian plan of salvation. Is your idea of hell more like darkness, a natural consequence of refusing light?

But this gnostic legalism does not equate to Christianity and it does not follow from their belief in a god that is immoral, that they themselves are immoral.

I agree that believing in a God that is immoral does not necessarily make the believer immoral. That is why my attacks are not usually aimed at Christians so much as they are aimed at the religion.

[Equinox]

Of course not. That’s why I said it was “another issue entirely.” If you take hell off the table, none of it makes sense to begin with. I agree with you completely there, at least hypothetically.

OK. 'sounds like we agree, and any perceived disagreement is a mix of splitting hairs combined with the vagaries of typed text. Cool.

Yes that’s a good definition. Too bad it ruins your point though because the “majority of objective scholarship” does not agree with you.

Is this again an issue of semantics? Should I say that the majority of professional opinion agrees that the pastorals are not written by Paul, even though they, in their text, claim to be written by paul? Is that not a forgery?


(Galatians 6:11, 2 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Thess. 3:17, Colossian 4:18, Philemon 1:19.)When you introduce the ideas of “forgeries” you are once again exaggerating the nature of the evidence which reveals a bias against the data and just like you say, it’s NOT objective.


OK, first, I looked up these, and they are times that paul claims to be writing these (except 2cor, which may be a typo - 2 cor ends at 13). Could you explain again how these support your point, and what you point is? Are you saying that Paul actually did write the pastorals?

By this definition, I’m certainly not a fundamentalist. I don’t think that many churches out there are either, again using this as the guidelines. This comes from some early 20th century statement by some overly-zealous Christian group, and has nothing specifically to do with fundamental Christian doctrines. This is not really what any of the churches you go on to list base their doctrines upon.

What we personally think can be skewed by personal experience. We can go by the fact that about a third of Americans see the Bible as literall true, word for word. That's about half of all Christians in the US, so that fits with these being fundamentalist churches, based on point #1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethi ... -true.aspx About half of all americans (a strong majority of all Christians) believe in young earth (~6,000 year) creationism. Maybe you are more liberal than most Christians in the US?

I take issue with the first and last one. The three in the middle are fundamentals. It doesn’t follow that “inspiration” yields “inerrancy,” or I least I don’t see how it does. Many “fundamentalist” and “conservative” churches do not have that kind of language in their statements of belief. Also, I may believe in the “historical reality of Christ’s miracles” but I think that’s pretty anecdotal and not really an important aspect of Christianity. It wouldn’t affect much of anything if it turned out Jesus never performed any miracles at all outside of his resurrection. I don’t know of ANY churches who use that kind of language in their statements of belief.

Well, it seems that the poll data supports them, as do statements of faith from churches. For instance, the local megachurch here supports biblical inerrancy (http://www.mefchurch.org/about-us/state ... faith.html). What city do you live in? I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot of churches there supporting biblical inerrancy, even if you are in california.

Do not all those data fit the prediction?It only fits if you use your definitions of “fundamentalist” churches. But you HAVE to use your definition in order to bring “Christianity” into the discussion. That’s where you are making the mistake. The ones that are higher on the list are generally more and more on the fringe of Christianity and less and less adhere to the core fundamental Christian beliefs. So sure, there is a polarization going on, but you can’t say that it’s Christianity that is polarizing based on that data. If that were true, the scale would almost need to be turned upside down. Think about what you are suggesting. On one ‘pole’ you have non-fundamental churches and on the other ‘pole’ you have fundamentalists and non-Christians? Really? Don’t you think the data more suggests that both fundamentalists and non-Christians are making a better sales pitch?

To me, your quote above is starting to sound like "no true scotsman". Nothing on my list can be the "fringe" of Christianity, since these are already the top 25 (out of hundreds) of church organizations in the US. Plus, as we both agree, these are the ones that are growing. You are calling the biggest and fastest growing churches "the fringe". If the biggest and fastest growing churches are "the fringe", then what are the smallest churches called? It sounds like you don't want to admit that growing churches that fit the definition of fundamentalism (especially the biblical inerrancy) can be called "fundamentalist Christian". So often I see Christians saying that the other Christians whose beliefs they don't agree with aren't really "True Christians". Are you doing that?

I agree that the data show that the churches that I'm calling "fundamentalist" and you are calling "fringe" are making the best sales pitch. I don't, however, think that this is true of the non-Christians, as I think that much of that is simply people realizing that the bronze-age bible doesn't match the reality of the modern world.


Equinox

[mitchellmckain]

Why? You think that man cannot disagree with God? That we cannot argue with Him? Surely you are aware of the stories in the Bible that show this to be false. No. Of course Christians have a choice, just like everyone else. That is what free will is all about.

If Christians believe God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, why would they disagree with God’s moral decisions?

Well it may depend on what those words are supposed to mean. It seems to me that their meaning can be stated in ways that are inconsistent with everything else we know about God. "Omnibenevolent" is not a word I have ever chosen to use, but suppose they mean following:
omniscient means that God can know whatever He chooses to know, and that granting free will means that He does not choose to know what we will choose before we do so.
omnibenevolent means that God is motivated purely to give of Himself for the sake of others.

According to these definitions I DO believe that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, but that our relationship with God is a real relationship with another being where what we want and choose does matter and make a difference. It is in this context that stories like that of Jonah and that of Abraham's interaction with God in Genesis 18 makes a lot more sense.

But you are incorrect. I am a Christian and I most definitely assert that we just disagree and that you will NOT be punished for having a different opinion.

The opinion we’re discussing is belief, and belief in God is a prerequisite to salvation once a person has been exposed to the Gospel. I understand you may not take this position, but this is the majority position among Christians. My observations are made in the context of mainstream Christian doctrine. Inasmuch as a position is not in the mainstream, my arguments may not apply.

Well your claim that this is the majority position is disputable, and regardless, why should your gross generalizations and categorical judgements be any more respected than the categorical judgements and gross generalizations of the racist? Thus your judgement should address the belief that is the real problem. I know it is harder to use discernment, but doing the easy thing is really at the root of a lot of the grief in human interaction.

Is it immoral to say that there are consequences to refusing to believe that one has made a mistake?

Depends on what the consequence is. If my child is careless and tramples the petunias, a moral consequence could be that there will be no more flowers for her to enjoy. An immoral consequence would be for me to lock the door for 3 days and not allow her to come inside because she trampled the petunias. I think hell is more like the latter, but it seems you find it is more like the former.

You do not believe in this hell you are talking about and so your last statement refering to hell as if it were some plain object out there makes no sense. Say rather that the hell (belief) you are condemning is like the latter but the hell that I believe in is like the former, for I would join you in condemning the latter.

Is it immoral to say that there are consequences to refusing the help of someone with the ability to help you?

Again, it depends on the consequences. I see Christianity teaching active consequences such as wrath, condemnation, judgment, and banishment from God toward those that do not accept the Gospel message, and I find those consequences generally immoral. It seems you believe in more passive consequences.

And I see irrational claims being pushed by atheists all the time also, but I know that however prevalent such irrational things may seem to me at times that these are not an essential part of what atheism is, and so I can condemn these irrational claims and ideas without passing judgement upon atheism as a whole. THIS kind of discernment is exactly what is required in order to LIVE UP to the claim that one can just see that Christians and atheists have different opinions without making moral judgements.

No, the belief that God created hell and the belief that God sends people to hell does not follow from the belief that hell exists or from the claim that God is teaching about hell.

Again, I follow the mainstream Christian idea that God created hell for the devil and his angels, and for humans that do not accept the Christian plan of salvation. Is your idea of hell more like darkness, a natural consequence of refusing light?

Well the Eastern Orthodox idea of hell is simply the reaction of those who hate God to the love that God gives liberally to everyone. The idea of hell in ideas in the writings of C.S. Lewis (one of the most popular and influential Christian writers in modern times) is that hell is a place that is locked from the inside. My view frankly is that hell is where we find our own heart's desire and heaven is where we find God's desire for us. While it is hell that is easy, comfortable and appealing, it succumbs to the morally degenerative nature of sin that inevitably leads to an eternal existence without that which makes such an existence worthwhile. While in heaven one find the great discomfort, difficulty and pain of confronting and overcoming our sin, the result is the growth and development we need to find that which can make an eternal existence worthwhile.

I agree that believing in a God that is immoral does not necessarily make the believer immoral. That is why my attacks are not usually aimed at Christians so much as they are aimed at the religion.

No Emery that just doesn't work. Christianity is the people. Put the shoe on the other foot and think about when Christians use the same sort of rhetoric to say that they don't hate the people just the atheism that will destroy those people. To respect people you have to respect their choices when you cannot objectively establish that their choice is wrong.

The word "religion" can and often does refer to something that Christians themselves villify but that does not equate Christianity to religion. So the proper discernment here is not Christianity versus people, but rather particular beliefs that people may have and teach versus the people and Christianity itself. You can attack the beliefs because the people themselves are doing this all the time -- it is one of the main activities of Christianity. But you cannot attack Christianity without attacking the people themselves.

[Keep The Reason]

No Emery that just doesn't work. Christianity is the people. Put the shoe on the other foot and think about when Christians use the same sort of rhetoric to say that they don't hate the people just the atheism that will destroy those people. To respect people you have to respect their choices when you cannot objectively establish that their choice is wrong.

"The other way around" doesn't work because atheism is just a rejection of theism. You reject many theistic models yourself. For instance, I doubt you spend much time in service to Kulkulkan, do you? Or Isis? Or Vishnu? However are you going to manage to not destroy yourself by rejecting these gods? Or, are you going to manage perfectly well just like I do by accepting they don't exist?

The difference is that you have selected a god model, and with it comes the same underlying threat of destruction that are associated with other god models you've rejected. Not objectively established? Well, I argue that nothing in human experience is truly "objective" but I can establish that it's irrational to choose one god model over another without investing the same effort of investigation into the accuracy of all such models to come to a consistent conclusion. I doubt you, or anyone else, have done this. Instead, you simply lean towards the one that is culturally familiar, and buy into it.

Given the lack of demonstrable information in all religious models, the only logical choice is to refrain from any choice for any of them. At the very least, theistic agnosticism is the only logical choice for any theistically inclined person. You simply do not know which theistic model is appropriate, and hence cannot make an objective choice yourself.

[Keep The Reason]

The word "religion" can and often does refer to something that Christians themselves villify but that does not equate Christianity to religion. So the proper discernment here is not Christianity versus people, but rather particular beliefs that people may have and teach versus the people and Christianity itself. You can attack the beliefs because the people themselves are doing this all the time -- it is one of the main activities of Christianity itself. But you cannot attack Christianity without attacking the people themselves.

This is merely yet another demand that ones religious beliefs deserve a special dispensation. The problem is not demanding that Christianity be treated as something it's not (it's an ideology despite any attempts to argue it otherwise); rather, it's for Christians to recognize that a critique of the ideology is not the equivalent of attacking the person. This is the mature, and ironic though it may be, the only tolerant view.

[yjoeyh]

Should I say that the majority of professional opinion agrees that the pastorals are not written by Paul, even though they, in their text, claim to be written by paul?

Well that is a less emotionally charged way of saying it, so yes, I think it’s better. The problem now is that if we are saying that the “majority of professional opinion” means something, then you also have to ask, does the “majority of professional opinion” also agree that this is a is an important or meaningful point? It does not appear from anything in the source you cited at least, that it has much bearing on anything. Or did I miss something?

Is that not a forgery?

Not at all. A forgery is a purposeful deception. It is sufficient (whether or not Paul mechanically authored the text) that they accurately express his thoughts and sentiments to the intended reader(s.) It could have been compiled from notes and verbal exchanges. That wouldn’t change anything.
I work for a company that has a publicist on staff and he will frequently write comments on behalf of our CEO. Even the President of the United States employs staff writers whose job it is to come up with the verbiage that expresses what the President already believes and wants to say. If someone said that the President said something that he did not say, or did not mean to say, then that would be a forgery.

OK, first, I looked up these, and they are times that paul claims to be writing these (except 2cor, which may be a typo - 2 cor ends at 13). Could you explain again how these support your point, and what you point is? Are you saying that Paul actually did write the pastorals?

You are right, I did make a typo. That should have been 1st Corinthians, not 2nd. Sorry about that.
It supports my point because it shows that it was very much understood, accepted and openly stated within the text itself that Paul did not routinely directly create these letters on his own and frequently relied upon others to do the writing for him. If there was some kind of deception going on, then why be so open about it, and why call special attention to parts that were written “by his own hand” unless that was indeed something unusual?

What we personally think can be skewed by personal experience. We can go by the fact that about a third of Americans see the Bible as literall true, word for word. That's about half of all Christians in the US, so that fits with these being fundamentalist churches, based on point #1.

It also fits with the source I cited earlier because that was specifically a statement about inerrancy. My point was that these “five original points of fundamentalism” does not accurately reflect the ‘gold standard’ that Christian churches use by in large to determine their doctrine. You have to go a lot further back to find that, and the whole point of that later movement was to establish a foundation for extremist views that are still present today. Of course there are similarities, but they are not the same. Neither points #1 or #5 are reflected in things like the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed which are much more representative of the backbone of Christian belief, regardless of what kind of fad religion happens to be popular at the time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx About half of all americans (a strong majority of all Christians) believe in young earth (~6,000 year) creationism. Maybe you are more liberal than most Christians in the US?

In some ways I am, and in some ways I’m probably not. I would say on these two points, I’m definitely on the liberal end. I do not believe the Bible to be entirely literal, and neither do I believe in young earth creationism. Whether that puts me in the majority or the minority it does not matter. My beliefs are consistent with ortahdox Christianity, and that is what I consider to be important.

Well, it seems that the poll data supports them, as do statements of faith from churches. For instance, the local megachurch here supports biblical inerrancy (http://www.mefchurch.org/about-us/state ... faith.html). What city do you live in? I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot of churches there supporting biblical inerrancy, even if you are in california.

I didn’t say that many churches don’t support inerrancy. I just said that many do not use that language, and even the ones that do are very careful to qualify it in such a way that it can’t really mean absolute inerrancy. I live in Nashville, which is a very church-centric area, but not as many ‘fundy’ churches as you might think. Here’s one very prominent local church that you can see doesn’t use any kind of language about inerrancy.
Belmont Church - http://www.belmont.org/assem/faith.asp “We believe that the Bible is the Holy Spirit-inspired, authoritative Word of God and that it is eternally reliable.”
What’s more, I couldn’t find any churches, including the one you cited that has any kind of language supporting point #5 on your list.

Nothing on my list can be the "fringe" of Christianity, since these are already the top 25 (out of hundreds) of church organizations in the US.

Sure they can. Being in the top 25 doesn’t automatically put a church in the center of the doctrines taught by all. It doesn’t even put it in the majority.

You are calling the biggest and fastest growing churches "the fringe".

Of course I am. Do you not also put them on the “fringe” of reasonability and what most people would consider normal and rational?

It sounds like you don't want to admit that growing churches that fit the definition of fundamentalism (especially the biblical inerrancy) can be called "fundamentalist Christian".

I don’t really care what they are called. I’m saying that they are not representative of Christianity. The rest is just semantics. I just find it ironic that you would classify them as fundamentalist.

So often I see Christians saying that the other Christians whose beliefs they don't agree with aren't really "True Christians". Are you doing that?

It depends on what they believe on certain issues as to whether or not “I” would consider them Christians. They can consider themselves Christian if they want, but I don’t have to agree with them. For me, to consider or refer to another person as “Christian,” they must believe certain things about God and Jesus, even if they believe differently than I do about things like miracles or how old the earth is, or how people should be baptized. I have opinions in all those areas, but I consider people with different opinions to still be Christians. If someone says something like God is evil, or that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but they call themselves a Christian, I might respect their opinion, but I would not consider them Christian. I have some good friends who are Mormons. They are great people, but I would never refer to them as Christians. And that’s not just my opinion, but also the opinion of pretty much all of the other denominations on your list, including the others you cite as being at the “top.”
So no, for any kind of reasonable discussion, or for any kind of commentary on Christianity, it is incorrect to refer to them as “true Christians.” It’s no different than if someone were claiming to be an “Atheist,” yet , talking about how the Bible was actually inspired by God. It would be completely correct to say that person was not a “true Atheist.” There’s no fallacy in that.

I agree that the data show that the churches that I'm calling "fundamentalist" and you are calling "fringe" are making the best sales pitch. I don't, however, think that this is true of the non-Christians, as I think that much of that is simply people realizing that the bronze-age bible doesn't match the reality of the modern world.

I’m very skeptical of your idea, but I guess it could be true. I’m basing my position on my experience interacting with lots of Atheists today who are very much about proselytizing people to their position. That sounds like a more reasonable explanation to me considering the apparent nature of cultural influence on today’s society and the scarcity of any radical position-changing discoveries on the “modern world.” I’m not aware of much new on that front.

[JustJim]

...in ways that are inconsistent with everything else we know about God...

LOL... As if.....



Jim