I'm an evangelical Presbyterian at heart. I'm a conservative, and strongly believe the message of the Bible, and feel the need to share it with others. So when I hear of these toxic downright...
Exemplary
I'm an evangelical Presbyterian at heart. I'm a conservative, and strongly believe the message of the Bible, and feel the need to share it with others.
So when I hear of these toxic downright dangerous groups, preaching utter shite like Prosperity Doctrine, and that in the US, somehow I get associated with them, I feel hurt. And I feel like a lot of people are hurt by it. People have their lives destroyed by it.
These aren't conservative Christians. These aren't evangelicals.
The message they spread is not one of Christ.
I struggle to outright name on it - as I am bound by my faith not to pass judgement upon them, but the damage that they wreak across the entire world, damaging the view of my faith by distorting and hiding all the truths that can be found in a sewage pit of human corruption... No rant could express the horror I feel whenever I see a trained individual, whose sole job is to guide and teach people how to find truth, and how to act upon the truth they know, say something like:
As long as Trump does things that are consistent with conservative Christian ideals, he’s a good guy. I don’t think he’s a nice guy, but as long as he goes along with my worldview, I’ll support him.
... It's disgusting.
My faith is a fading one. The world is outright rejecting it.
I don't think it's because it's wrong, or I wouldn't believe it myself. My faith is the only logical conclusion to the rational knowledge that I've explored. I find no other conclusion, when weighing the corpus we know as the Bible, in a scientific and logical manner.
But then we have those, who pride themselves on knowing, but not understanding fragments of the corpus, using brainwashing techniques and enjoying hatred of others to fuel an enterprise set to burden the world with people who proclaim loudly, but may as well be 'the player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.'
That is the problem I see in modern Christianity. The title of 'Christianity' no longer means those that seek to be Christ-like, but just another title of another cult, full of nothing.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Unity in necessary things, Freedom in doubtful things, Love in all things.
That is the motto of the 'Evangelical Presbyterian Church', a church I'm not all that familiar with, not being a person in the US, but that motto does reflect what it means to be Christian, and conservative, and evangelical.
Welcome all with open arms, even if you hate their choices, because we are more concerned with the person, and their soul, than any value that may be placed upon any decision that we are not free to judge.
“People are quick to put one stamp on Liberty, but there are a lot of students who are embarrassed by Falwell,” said Jack Panyard, who is in his final year of journalism studies.
That is the only hope I can find in articles like this. That there are those that oppose this mindless cultish behaviour, and that they are willing to speak out against it.
You put into words what I've been feeling for a a couple of years now. I've definitely fallen out of my faith as a Christian, and I think it's largely because of the things you've described. When...
You put into words what I've been feeling for a a couple of years now. I've definitely fallen out of my faith as a Christian, and I think it's largely because of the things you've described. When people ask if I'm a Christian now, I don't even know how to respond. Even though I seek to be Christ-like, I'm finding it very, very difficult to regain my faith. I just wish there was a church that focused on community, self-improvement, and helping others. Mine used to be like that, and now it's coo-coo. And all the other ones I've been to are coo-coo too. It's so sad that it's common to include politics in the church. I don't know if it's even possible to rejoin the church. I've had more self growth through my own studies and talking to people online like this than I've had at church. I've found it very rare for people to be open to discussing their doubts in their faith, other religions, and anything that doesn't agree with the Bible. People are so afraid to question and discuss, so it feels very cult-like. How do I distinguish being a Christian with just being a good person who thought Jesus was a pretty cool guy and that I should strive to be like him?
When people fear to question, when they fear to doubt - the church has failed. The primary reason we have meeting places is so we have a space where we can question, and pastors are there to be...
When people fear to question, when they fear to doubt - the church has failed. The primary reason we have meeting places is so we have a space where we can question, and pastors are there to be teachers. If you can't... Then the church has failed.
I do find that house churches, which often grow out of Bible study and a hunger to ask questions, are more successful in providing the right environment, so that individual growth can happen.
I don't regularly attend church anymore. I tended to create conflict when people got caught up in singing, and would take that as a sign that 'God was moving'. They'd ask me if I felt it, and become shocked when I responded 'No'.
How do I distinguish being a Christian with just being a good person who thought Jesus was a pretty cool guy and that I should strive to be like him?
I have to provide some caution here.
Jesus can't just be a cool guy.
It's fine to take his values, to a point.
But, he called himself God on multiple ocassions, and it leaves us with three main arguments:
He's insane. And taking the advice of someone with a lack of reality is a bad idea.
He's lying. Trusting the word of a liar, is going to get you hurt eventually.
He really is who he says he is. In which case, ignoring him is a terrible idea.
Again, up to a point it's fine. Especially when you're trying to figure stuff out... But eventually, to be honest to yourself, you should make a choice.
I'm not a big fan of Lewis's Lunatic-Liar-or-Lord trilemma. It depends on the assumptions that the Jesus recorded in the Bible represents a real person and accurately reflects his words and...
I'm not a big fan of Lewis's Lunatic-Liar-or-Lord trilemma. It depends on the assumptions that the Jesus recorded in the Bible represents a real person and accurately reflects his words and teachings. As far as I remember, only the gospel of John (the latest one written 60 years after Jesus's death) records claims that Jesus is divine. The trilemma also doesn't do a good job of explaining why other possibilities cannot hold, such as in the tetralemma that appends a "Legend" option.
It absolutely does. And I'm yet to see an evidence that that is not the case is grounded in reality. That's not the case. At all. To help illustrate, the earliest gospel we have is Mark. When...
It depends on the assumptions that the Jesus recorded in the Bible represents a real person and accurately reflects his words and teachings.
It absolutely does. And I'm yet to see an evidence that that is not the case is grounded in reality.
As far as I remember, only the gospel of John (the latest one written 60 years after Jesus's death) records claims that Jesus is divine.
That's not the case. At all. To help illustrate, the earliest gospel we have is Mark.
When Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, they ask him, "Are you the Messiah? The Son of God?"
Jesus responds, with a phrase you often see translated as, 'I am'.
This is a very loaded phrase. It's the name that was given to Moses, when he asked what to call God.
Jesus claimed he was God, before the Sanhedrin, and it had the effect you would expect of any such claim.
Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, “Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?”
(Context: Tearing of clothes was a common expression of 'extreme grief' or similar strong emotion, among those people, at that time.)
Take careful note, that this conversation appears in even the earliest fragments of Mark, before we have signs of any editor, or any possible expansion of the document. It appears in a fragment that is currently dated to 80AD - within living memory of the witnesses of the events.
It's a clear claim of divinity, and was understood by the people of the time as such.
To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never wrote anything down, and as such it is more accurate to say that those who wrote about him make the claim that he called himself God. As such, there are...
To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never wrote anything down, and as such it is more accurate to say that those who wrote about him make the claim that he called himself God. As such, there are considerably more than three possibilities.
The gospel of Mark was written and proliferated within living memory. That is, the witnesses of the events were still alive, and their word was worth a great deal to the believers of that time and...
The gospel of Mark was written and proliferated within living memory. That is, the witnesses of the events were still alive, and their word was worth a great deal to the believers of that time and era. If they had said it was not so... It would not have been.
Jesus himself, did claim to be God, before the Sanhedrin no less (according to the oldest manuscript of the oldest gospel, Mark). It was one of the main reason they called for his execution.
To have the claim that Jesus never claimed to be Messiah, or to be God, one would need the cooperation of:
The Sanhedrin
The twelve devoted disciples
The hundreds who Jesus had taught in several separate short-term events
The people, the Sanhedrin, and this radical group claiming their leader was God himself are not likely to have worked in cooperation.
And within the 1st Century, the cooperation of the Roman government (or Jophesus' writings wouldn't have been possible, which though interspersed with editing, has some solid cores - like the execution of John the Baptist, and the phrase 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James'. Jophesus would have worked from older Roman writings in a number of cases.)
So, just to confirm, we are in agreement that this material is not authored by Jesus, but by other people, right? And as such, there's at least a fourth possibility in the "trilemma" that there is...
So, just to confirm, we are in agreement that this material is not authored by Jesus, but by other people, right? And as such, there's at least a fourth possibility in the "trilemma" that there is some sort of confusion or human error in exactly what was said? You've stated that this was "within living memory" - but we all see how recollection of events can change on much shorter time frames than that. Given that, is it really reasonable to say that human error can be completely ruled out?
Further to that, if we look at the content of the Gospel of Mark, it's not even directly saying that Jesus is God. The consistent claim is that Jesus is the son of God. Now we can look backward through 2000 years of Christian theology and say that this is effectively the same thing, but that doctrine certainly did not exist at the time of the authorship of the earliest gospel. How the term "son of God" would be interpreted in the Classical world (which had long been rife with demigods) is completely different from our understanding in the Christian/post-Christian milieu of 2018. So it's also possible that the gospel is accurate but we are interpreting it incorrectly based on later developments. Same thing with the term "Messiah" - that term did not mean "God" to Jewish people in the first century. It referred to an anticipated anointed king from the Davidic line. Josephus's use of the term "Christ" is similar - it's a Greek term meaning "anointed". It is post-hoc reasoning to suggest that Josephus's understanding of the term would be the same as that of a Christian theologian from centuries later.
Yes, Jesus didn't write, nor would he have been expected to, in that era. No, the standards of the time would not have allowed a false work to proliferate so quickly in that era. I can't agree...
So, just to confirm, we are in agreement that this material is not authored by Jesus, but by other people, right? And as such, there's at least a fourth possibility in the "trilemma" that there is some sort of confusion or human error in exactly what was said?
Yes, Jesus didn't write, nor would he have been expected to, in that era. No, the standards of the time would not have allowed a false work to proliferate so quickly in that era. I can't agree that is a possibility.
Further to that, if we look at the content of the Gospel of Mark, it's not even directly saying that Jesus is God. The consistent claim is that Jesus is the son of God.
The content of the Gospel of Mark consistently builds up to the claim Jesus is God.
He tells the Sanhedrin he is YAHWEH. That's the conclusion. There isn't another way to interpret that.
In Mark 2, Jesus forgives sins, something only God can do, and when the crowd is disturbed, he compounds it, by explaining he has authority, and heals a paralytic.
The series of miracles Mark presents, are those that show Jesus' authority. Healing of the sick, even on the Sabbath, stilling of water and waves, power of demons.
Jesus refers to himself as God, frequently, when quoting from the Jewish holy works. A rejection of Jesus, was considered by the man to be a rejection of God - directly, not just as a rejection of a prophet.
Jesus continually claims divinity. When questioned if he is divine, he says he is YAHWEH.
And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?” And Jesus said, “YAHWEH...
Mark directly says Jesus is God. That isn't something that can be held to be false. This passage appears in the oldest of the fragments we've found. It hasn't been inserted by an editor. It isn't a mistake. It's Mark's climactic moment.
How the term "son of God" would be interpreted in the Classical world (which had long been rife with demigods) is completely different from our understanding in the Christian/post-Christian milieu of 2018.
Yes, but you're not correct in how it would be interpreted.
Within Jewish scope of understanding, it means 'one who has the same nature as God', rather than the Roman understanding which would mean someone who appears to have been 'touched by the divine'.
Now we can look backward through 2000 years of Christian theology and say that this is effectively the same thing, but that doctrine certainly did not exist at the time of the authorship of the earliest gospel.
If we did, we would be wrong. The process of exegesis exists to protect us against our own biases. When the Bible says 'son of God', it doesn't literally mean the familial son of God, it means one who has a nature like God (well, it kinda changes a little in Paul's letters, thanks to Paul's Roman culture.)
Josephus's use of the term "Christ" is similar - it's a Greek term meaning "anointed". It is post-hoc reasoning to suggest that Josephus's understanding of the term would be the same as that of a Christian theologian from centuries later.
I wasn't suggesting Josephus would believe that Jesus was anything other than a claimed Messiah. That was the point - Roman history records Jesus as claiming he was Messiah. That's all I'm referencing Josephus' works for.
. Same thing with the term "Messiah" - that term did not mean "God" to Jewish people in the first century. It referred to an anticipated anointed king from the Davidic line.
You're quite correct. Absolutely. The fact that Messiah turned out to be God in human form, is one of Mark's bombshells. It was huge.
Hmm, that's an interesting claim. The other Gospels all have certain discrepancies (variations in dates, etc), and yet they did proliferate. That would seem to indicate that people, even devout...
Yes, Jesus didn't write, nor would he have been expected to, in that era. No, the standards of the time would not have allowed a false work to proliferate so quickly in that era. I can't agree that is a possibility.
Hmm, that's an interesting claim. The other Gospels all have certain discrepancies (variations in dates, etc), and yet they did proliferate. That would seem to indicate that people, even devout believers, of the era were willing to tolerate certain inaccuracies.
Within Jewish scope of understanding, it means 'one who has the same nature as God', rather than the Roman understanding which would mean someone who appears to have been 'touched by the divine'.
That's another interesting claim. This was a central debate during the early Church. The Ebionites, for instance, were a Jewish Christian movement and certainly had a very different understanding from the one you're outlining. So once again, you seem to be in disagreement with what we know of the actual time. Most of the 5th century councils had significant debate concerning Christology and the nature of Jesus's relationship to God. There's no indication that any of this was settled at the time of the writing of Mark. The evidence that exists is actually completely the opposite, that there was no consensus until centuries later.
He tells the Sanhedrin he is YAHWEH. That's the conclusion. There isn't another way to interpret that.
Hmmm...
NIV: "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
ESV: And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
NASB: And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
King James: And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
CEV: "Yes, I am!" Jesus answered. "Soon you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right side of God All-Powerful, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Good News: "I am," answered Jesus, "and you will all see the Son of Man seated at the right side of the Almighty and coming with the clouds of heaven!"
ISV: Jesus said, "I AM, and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'"
Ἐγώ εἰμι· means "I am". I mean, I get what you're saying, but the text doesn't literally say Yahweh in any translation I'm familiar with. The closest argument you could make would be the ISV. It certainly doesn't say it in Greek - you're applying this massive importance to a common phrase that would be used by anyone who was asked to give their name or explain who they were. On top of that, this is itself an interpretation. To claim that there's no other way to interpret it when you yourself are altering the words and there are demonstrably other interpretations is incredibly disingenuous.
Look, honestly, at this point, I think we are done here. I've amply demonstrated that Lewis's trilemma does not withstand rigorous scrutiny and that there is at least room for reasonable scholars in the field to disagree. You're welcome to believe whatever you wish.
Not a common phrase. It only makes use in attestation, without that, it doesn't make sense in Greek any longer. It becomes what appears to be a literal translation of a phrase we know of in the...
you're applying this massive importance to a common phrase that would be used by anyone who was asked to give their name or explain who they were.
"...ἐγώ εἰμι is in itself (as Greek) a meaningless expression" CK Barrett
The absolute use of ἐγώ εἰμι is not attested in non-Jewish Greek texts, and it is also absent from the writings of Josephus and Philo. Catrin H. Williams
Not a common phrase. It only makes use in attestation, without that, it doesn't make sense in Greek any longer. It becomes what appears to be a literal translation of a phrase we know of in the language we know Jesus spoke.
I'm quite fine with ending our conversation - this isn't covering anything new, or anything I haven't heard, investigated and found to be wanting. There are answers to the Ebionites, and the settled divinity of the Messiah within the first century. Perhaps it would be best if anybody was to seek them out, rather than relying on a random internet forum.
Why must you distinguish? Is there a reason you need to define yourself with just a simple word - the same word that others use to define themselves? Why not take the long route of explanation, if...
How do I distinguish being a Christian with just being a good person who thought Jesus was a pretty cool guy and that I should strive to be like him?
Why must you distinguish? Is there a reason you need to define yourself with just a simple word - the same word that others use to define themselves?
Why not take the long route of explanation, if it leads others to understand you better and helps to avoid misconception?
It's not. Not everyone subscribes to every stereotype of every label they assign to themselves. I think I've mentioned it elsewhere, my gf tends left but also is pro-life. People's opinions come...
It's not. Not everyone subscribes to every stereotype of every label they assign to themselves. I think I've mentioned it elsewhere, my gf tends left but also is pro-life. People's opinions come in neat little pre-made packages WAY less often than the world would have you think.
While most warmongering is not Christlike, do remember that Christ did not just teach peace and harmony. Much of his teaching was highly divisive. "What Would Jesus Do?" includes driving people...
While most warmongering is not Christlike, do remember that Christ did not just teach peace and harmony. Much of his teaching was highly divisive. "What Would Jesus Do?" includes driving people out of the temple with a whip, scattering coins, and flipping tables in some situations.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
"‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Please don't quote things without context or reasoning. That's incredibly unhelpful. No scholar quotes a document of a couple thousand years without first putting forth the context required to...
Please don't quote things without context or reasoning. That's incredibly unhelpful. No scholar quotes a document of a couple thousand years without first putting forth the context required to understand what is being said.
What's quoted there is a reference to something older. Something we now know as Micah 7.
he day God visits you has come,
the day your watchmen sound the alarm.
Now is the time of your confusion.
Do not trust a neighbor;
put no confidence in a friend.
Even with the woman who lies in your embrace
guard the words of your lips.
For a son dishonors his father,
a daughter rises up against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies are the members of his own household.
But as for me, I watch in hope for the Lord,
I wait for God my Savior;
my God will hear me.
This is part of a passage, about the redemption day of Israel, as a people, when they finally turn their way back to God... And find that they're divided, and that He will only save some of them. It's one of the early prophecies about the Messiah, who will come to free them... But each faith belongs to each individual. And so, you cannot know who will be saved.
The quotation from Jesus is twofold.
Here, in Matthew, is when he sends them out into the country. He is saying He is the Messiah, sending them.
He is saying that the teachings of Messiah will bring discord, and may act as a home-wrecker. Because it will bring uncertainty to everyone.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the context and, yes, I should have prefaced it with the point I was trying to make rather than inserting it on its own. I've edited my comment above to clarify a bit.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the context and, yes, I should have prefaced it with the point I was trying to make rather than inserting it on its own. I've edited my comment above to clarify a bit.
I am truly and deeply sorry that your evangelistic faith is getting dragged through the mud in this way. In my experience the label you were struggling to name is generally evangelical for...
I am truly and deeply sorry that your evangelistic faith is getting dragged through the mud in this way. In my experience the label you were struggling to name is generally evangelical for mainstream US discourse even if it's not the most theologically sound differentiator to pick.
In seeing these 'churches' operating and the resistance to them growing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive theological shift in the church at large in response.
I feel that as religion declines in society, those on the fringes are slowly becoming the new norm, at least to the general public. You don't see people who accept gay members into their...
I feel that as religion declines in society, those on the fringes are slowly becoming the new norm, at least to the general public. You don't see people who accept gay members into their congregations in the news for actually being decent human beings, you see the loudmouths who protest at veterans' funerals and preach about how the government is out to get them.
Extremist preachers alienate many potential members, but keep a tight grip on those who are susceptible to that kind of rhetoric, and are able to nickel and dime them until the cows come home and encourage them to vote for certain candidates. The fact that their message of hate and cult-like devotion scares many people can be skewed as proof that they're right, and that those who do not fall in line are part of Satan's attempts to lead their flock astray, further reinforcing blind faith.
I don't think there is a real cure for it, it's difficult to reason with people who are in the grip of hardline preachers since you are viewed as one of Satan's minions.
I think you're confusing something here. I ranted against hatred. I despise being associated with those people. What gets called conservative Christianity is denounced by the church, the world...
I think you're confusing something here.
I ranted against hatred. I despise being associated with those people.
What gets called conservative Christianity is denounced by the church, the world over.
Luther's writings lead not just to the end of slavery in Britain, but the beginnings of rehabilitation over punishment.
My Messiah had a terrorist in his inner circle, and a whore among his close friends.
The bigoted hatred of others in the name of God is nothing more than what the Pharisees preached in Jesus' day. He cleared the temple with a whip that he hand-braided that day.
I'll play devil's advocate a bit here: In order for the law to mean anything, it must be enforced. Most evangelicals I know do support the idea of rehabilitation and forgiveness, at least in...
I'll play devil's advocate a bit here:
How do you reconcile the teachings of forgiveness with conservative 'law and order' politics of enacting the harshest possible punishments for crimes instead of focusing on rehabilitation?
In order for the law to mean anything, it must be enforced. Most evangelicals I know do support the idea of rehabilitation and forgiveness, at least in theory.
Or the teachings of love thy neighbor with the racist anti-immigration politics of the US?
If we are a nation of laws, we can't just choose to ignore our laws regarding immigration. We can make immigration easier to do legally via legislation so there isn't such a need for people to come illegally, but we can't just let people come in willy-nilly and live undocumented in the shadows of the legal system.
Or helping the poor, sick, and hungry with the politics taking away social security, health care, Medicare, and medicaid?
Helping the poor, sick, and hungry is extremely important, but that should not be the function of the government. We should not be dependent on government support to survive. Ideally, these functions should be handled by local churches and charitable institutions rather than being part of a giant federal bureaucracy given how inefficiently we know government performs.
Or the teachings of acceptance and love with bigoted anti-LGBT politics?
This boils down to the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. Starting from the assumption that LGBT behavior is contrary to God's intended design, LGBT individuals should be treated with love and respect, but public policy should not endorse such behavior that is detrimental to society.
I'd love to hear s4b3r6's response, too. But you answered different questions than were asked. Regardless of what the law is, conservative ideology promotes limited immigration. How is that policy...
I'd love to hear s4b3r6's response, too. But you answered different questions than were asked.
Regardless of what the law is, conservative ideology promotes limited immigration. How is that policy stance compatible with Christianity? In other words, would not a Christian seek to change the laws to be favorable to expanded immigration?
Wrt crime and law and order, again the question was not one of whether we should enforce laws, but rather what laws should we have, and how should we enforce them? Should we have 'vice' laws? Would Jesus really promote those? And in cases where the crime is one of mental health or poor raising, should we not demonstrate love instead of punishment, if we call ourselves at all Christ like?
WRT lgbtq folks, why should the state impose morality based sanctions on these people, excluding them in any way? Surely, as Christian people, we reserve only to god the power to judge?
I think you forget that we humans. We do not have unlimited compassion, love, and understanding. It's entirely possible to accept that an ideal society would not have immigration laws, but that...
I think you forget that we humans. We do not have unlimited compassion, love, and understanding. It's entirely possible to accept that an ideal society would not have immigration laws, but that the shortcomings of humanity make that all but impossible. It's not only possible, but practically guaranteed that we cannot have a society without laws as humans are, by design, imperfect sinners.
Some of the questions you pose are more easily answered than others. I do not think there is a direct cost to anyone wrt lgbtq+ rights. Anyone who tries to follow in Jesus's footsteps would quickly note that. But expanding immigration hurts jobs and law and order exists to protect people from harm, so they are much more difficult to accommodate in a truly loving and compassionate matter.
I certainly agree with you. Many of the conservative positions cannot be reasonably squared with Christ's teachings. Most churches don't actually teach these more extreme positions though and...
I certainly agree with you. Many of the conservative positions cannot be reasonably squared with Christ's teachings. Most churches don't actually teach these more extreme positions though and those usually tend to come from people who are only nominally Christian who use the Bible to prop up their bigotry.
A more devil's advocate-ish answer to this I can think of: love thy neighbour while they are your neighbours, but when they come start living in your living room, they are not the neighbour...
Or the teachings of love thy neighbor with the racist anti-immigration politics of the US?
If we are a nation of laws, we can't just choose to ignore our laws regarding immigration. We can make immigration easier to do legally via legislation so there isn't such a need for people to come illegally, but we can't just let people come in willy-nilly and live undocumented in the shadows of the legal system.
A more devil's advocate-ish answer to this I can think of: love thy neighbour while they are your neighbours, but when they come start living in your living room, they are not the neighbour anymore, so things might change.
Evangelical Christians are no strangers to hypocrisy, although I personally feel that their full-throated support of Trump may constitute a new low. It's just more proof that evangelical...
Evangelical Christians are no strangers to hypocrisy, although I personally feel that their full-throated support of Trump may constitute a new low. It's just more proof that evangelical Christianity has lost any sort of spiritual and moral core and now more closely represents a right-wing political and social club than an actual religion.
Some days I hope they are right and Jesus is real and does come back. Any intelligent reading of the new testament would indicate that he would have a lot more in common with anarchists, socialists, and other leftists than with these selfish scumbags. Jesus upending tables in a prosperity gospel mega-church would be a deeply satisfying sight for sure.
Liberty University has always been like this. It exists to push regressive religious policies and lifestyles. They are famously anti-gay and reprimand simple things like attending a dance or...
Liberty University has always been like this. It exists to push regressive religious policies and lifestyles. They are famously anti-gay and reprimand simple things like attending a dance or viewing R-rated movies. There are other religious colleges with similar leanings (see BYU for the Mormon flavor), but Liberty is the most vocal and visible of all of them.
It's really funny how you never hear any of these people who are deeply concerned about free speech on campus speak out against Liberty U and similar institutions.
It's really funny how you never hear any of these people who are deeply concerned about free speech on campus speak out against Liberty U and similar institutions.
I'm an evangelical Presbyterian at heart. I'm a conservative, and strongly believe the message of the Bible, and feel the need to share it with others.
So when I hear of these toxic downright dangerous groups, preaching utter shite like Prosperity Doctrine, and that in the US, somehow I get associated with them, I feel hurt. And I feel like a lot of people are hurt by it. People have their lives destroyed by it.
These aren't conservative Christians. These aren't evangelicals.
The message they spread is not one of Christ.
I struggle to outright name on it - as I am bound by my faith not to pass judgement upon them, but the damage that they wreak across the entire world, damaging the view of my faith by distorting and hiding all the truths that can be found in a sewage pit of human corruption... No rant could express the horror I feel whenever I see a trained individual, whose sole job is to guide and teach people how to find truth, and how to act upon the truth they know, say something like:
... It's disgusting.
My faith is a fading one. The world is outright rejecting it.
I don't think it's because it's wrong, or I wouldn't believe it myself. My faith is the only logical conclusion to the rational knowledge that I've explored. I find no other conclusion, when weighing the corpus we know as the Bible, in a scientific and logical manner.
But then we have those, who pride themselves on knowing, but not understanding fragments of the corpus, using brainwashing techniques and enjoying hatred of others to fuel an enterprise set to burden the world with people who proclaim loudly, but may as well be 'the player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.'
That is the problem I see in modern Christianity. The title of 'Christianity' no longer means those that seek to be Christ-like, but just another title of another cult, full of nothing.
Unity in necessary things, Freedom in doubtful things, Love in all things.
That is the motto of the 'Evangelical Presbyterian Church', a church I'm not all that familiar with, not being a person in the US, but that motto does reflect what it means to be Christian, and conservative, and evangelical.
Welcome all with open arms, even if you hate their choices, because we are more concerned with the person, and their soul, than any value that may be placed upon any decision that we are not free to judge.
That is the only hope I can find in articles like this. That there are those that oppose this mindless cultish behaviour, and that they are willing to speak out against it.
You put into words what I've been feeling for a a couple of years now. I've definitely fallen out of my faith as a Christian, and I think it's largely because of the things you've described. When people ask if I'm a Christian now, I don't even know how to respond. Even though I seek to be Christ-like, I'm finding it very, very difficult to regain my faith. I just wish there was a church that focused on community, self-improvement, and helping others. Mine used to be like that, and now it's coo-coo. And all the other ones I've been to are coo-coo too. It's so sad that it's common to include politics in the church. I don't know if it's even possible to rejoin the church. I've had more self growth through my own studies and talking to people online like this than I've had at church. I've found it very rare for people to be open to discussing their doubts in their faith, other religions, and anything that doesn't agree with the Bible. People are so afraid to question and discuss, so it feels very cult-like. How do I distinguish being a Christian with just being a good person who thought Jesus was a pretty cool guy and that I should strive to be like him?
When people fear to question, when they fear to doubt - the church has failed. The primary reason we have meeting places is so we have a space where we can question, and pastors are there to be teachers. If you can't... Then the church has failed.
I do find that house churches, which often grow out of Bible study and a hunger to ask questions, are more successful in providing the right environment, so that individual growth can happen.
I don't regularly attend church anymore. I tended to create conflict when people got caught up in singing, and would take that as a sign that 'God was moving'. They'd ask me if I felt it, and become shocked when I responded 'No'.
I have to provide some caution here.
Jesus can't just be a cool guy.
It's fine to take his values, to a point.
But, he called himself God on multiple ocassions, and it leaves us with three main arguments:
He's insane. And taking the advice of someone with a lack of reality is a bad idea.
He's lying. Trusting the word of a liar, is going to get you hurt eventually.
He really is who he says he is. In which case, ignoring him is a terrible idea.
Again, up to a point it's fine. Especially when you're trying to figure stuff out... But eventually, to be honest to yourself, you should make a choice.
I'm not a big fan of Lewis's Lunatic-Liar-or-Lord trilemma. It depends on the assumptions that the Jesus recorded in the Bible represents a real person and accurately reflects his words and teachings. As far as I remember, only the gospel of John (the latest one written 60 years after Jesus's death) records claims that Jesus is divine. The trilemma also doesn't do a good job of explaining why other possibilities cannot hold, such as in the tetralemma that appends a "Legend" option.
It absolutely does. And I'm yet to see an evidence that that is not the case is grounded in reality.
That's not the case. At all. To help illustrate, the earliest gospel we have is Mark.
When Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, they ask him, "Are you the Messiah? The Son of God?"
Jesus responds, with a phrase you often see translated as, 'I am'.
This is a very loaded phrase. It's the name that was given to Moses, when he asked what to call God.
Jesus claimed he was God, before the Sanhedrin, and it had the effect you would expect of any such claim.
(Context: Tearing of clothes was a common expression of 'extreme grief' or similar strong emotion, among those people, at that time.)
Take careful note, that this conversation appears in even the earliest fragments of Mark, before we have signs of any editor, or any possible expansion of the document. It appears in a fragment that is currently dated to 80AD - within living memory of the witnesses of the events.
It's a clear claim of divinity, and was understood by the people of the time as such.
To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never wrote anything down, and as such it is more accurate to say that those who wrote about him make the claim that he called himself God. As such, there are considerably more than three possibilities.
The gospel of Mark was written and proliferated within living memory. That is, the witnesses of the events were still alive, and their word was worth a great deal to the believers of that time and era. If they had said it was not so... It would not have been.
Jesus himself, did claim to be God, before the Sanhedrin no less (according to the oldest manuscript of the oldest gospel, Mark). It was one of the main reason they called for his execution.
To have the claim that Jesus never claimed to be Messiah, or to be God, one would need the cooperation of:
The people, the Sanhedrin, and this radical group claiming their leader was God himself are not likely to have worked in cooperation.
And within the 1st Century, the cooperation of the Roman government (or Jophesus' writings wouldn't have been possible, which though interspersed with editing, has some solid cores - like the execution of John the Baptist, and the phrase 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James'. Jophesus would have worked from older Roman writings in a number of cases.)
So, just to confirm, we are in agreement that this material is not authored by Jesus, but by other people, right? And as such, there's at least a fourth possibility in the "trilemma" that there is some sort of confusion or human error in exactly what was said? You've stated that this was "within living memory" - but we all see how recollection of events can change on much shorter time frames than that. Given that, is it really reasonable to say that human error can be completely ruled out?
Further to that, if we look at the content of the Gospel of Mark, it's not even directly saying that Jesus is God. The consistent claim is that Jesus is the son of God. Now we can look backward through 2000 years of Christian theology and say that this is effectively the same thing, but that doctrine certainly did not exist at the time of the authorship of the earliest gospel. How the term "son of God" would be interpreted in the Classical world (which had long been rife with demigods) is completely different from our understanding in the Christian/post-Christian milieu of 2018. So it's also possible that the gospel is accurate but we are interpreting it incorrectly based on later developments. Same thing with the term "Messiah" - that term did not mean "God" to Jewish people in the first century. It referred to an anticipated anointed king from the Davidic line. Josephus's use of the term "Christ" is similar - it's a Greek term meaning "anointed". It is post-hoc reasoning to suggest that Josephus's understanding of the term would be the same as that of a Christian theologian from centuries later.
Yes, Jesus didn't write, nor would he have been expected to, in that era. No, the standards of the time would not have allowed a false work to proliferate so quickly in that era. I can't agree that is a possibility.
The content of the Gospel of Mark consistently builds up to the claim Jesus is God.
He tells the Sanhedrin he is YAHWEH. That's the conclusion. There isn't another way to interpret that.
In Mark 2, Jesus forgives sins, something only God can do, and when the crowd is disturbed, he compounds it, by explaining he has authority, and heals a paralytic.
The series of miracles Mark presents, are those that show Jesus' authority. Healing of the sick, even on the Sabbath, stilling of water and waves, power of demons.
Jesus refers to himself as God, frequently, when quoting from the Jewish holy works. A rejection of Jesus, was considered by the man to be a rejection of God - directly, not just as a rejection of a prophet.
Jesus continually claims divinity. When questioned if he is divine, he says he is YAHWEH.
Mark directly says Jesus is God. That isn't something that can be held to be false. This passage appears in the oldest of the fragments we've found. It hasn't been inserted by an editor. It isn't a mistake. It's Mark's climactic moment.
Yes, but you're not correct in how it would be interpreted.
Within Jewish scope of understanding, it means 'one who has the same nature as God', rather than the Roman understanding which would mean someone who appears to have been 'touched by the divine'.
If we did, we would be wrong. The process of exegesis exists to protect us against our own biases. When the Bible says 'son of God', it doesn't literally mean the familial son of God, it means one who has a nature like God (well, it kinda changes a little in Paul's letters, thanks to Paul's Roman culture.)
I wasn't suggesting Josephus would believe that Jesus was anything other than a claimed Messiah. That was the point - Roman history records Jesus as claiming he was Messiah. That's all I'm referencing Josephus' works for.
You're quite correct. Absolutely. The fact that Messiah turned out to be God in human form, is one of Mark's bombshells. It was huge.
Hmm, that's an interesting claim. The other Gospels all have certain discrepancies (variations in dates, etc), and yet they did proliferate. That would seem to indicate that people, even devout believers, of the era were willing to tolerate certain inaccuracies.
That's another interesting claim. This was a central debate during the early Church. The Ebionites, for instance, were a Jewish Christian movement and certainly had a very different understanding from the one you're outlining. So once again, you seem to be in disagreement with what we know of the actual time. Most of the 5th century councils had significant debate concerning Christology and the nature of Jesus's relationship to God. There's no indication that any of this was settled at the time of the writing of Mark. The evidence that exists is actually completely the opposite, that there was no consensus until centuries later.
Hmmm...
Ἐγώ εἰμι· means "I am". I mean, I get what you're saying, but the text doesn't literally say Yahweh in any translation I'm familiar with. The closest argument you could make would be the ISV. It certainly doesn't say it in Greek - you're applying this massive importance to a common phrase that would be used by anyone who was asked to give their name or explain who they were. On top of that, this is itself an interpretation. To claim that there's no other way to interpret it when you yourself are altering the words and there are demonstrably other interpretations is incredibly disingenuous.
Look, honestly, at this point, I think we are done here. I've amply demonstrated that Lewis's trilemma does not withstand rigorous scrutiny and that there is at least room for reasonable scholars in the field to disagree. You're welcome to believe whatever you wish.
Not a common phrase. It only makes use in attestation, without that, it doesn't make sense in Greek any longer. It becomes what appears to be a literal translation of a phrase we know of in the language we know Jesus spoke.
I'm quite fine with ending our conversation - this isn't covering anything new, or anything I haven't heard, investigated and found to be wanting. There are answers to the Ebionites, and the settled divinity of the Messiah within the first century. Perhaps it would be best if anybody was to seek them out, rather than relying on a random internet forum.
Why must you distinguish? Is there a reason you need to define yourself with just a simple word - the same word that others use to define themselves?
Why not take the long route of explanation, if it leads others to understand you better and helps to avoid misconception?
I'll add to dubteedub's list:
How is promoting war-a generally convservative stance-- Christlike activity?
It's not. Not everyone subscribes to every stereotype of every label they assign to themselves. I think I've mentioned it elsewhere, my gf tends left but also is pro-life. People's opinions come in neat little pre-made packages WAY less often than the world would have you think.
While most warmongering is not Christlike, do remember that Christ did not just teach peace and harmony. Much of his teaching was highly divisive. "What Would Jesus Do?" includes driving people out of the temple with a whip, scattering coins, and flipping tables in some situations.
Please don't quote things without context or reasoning. That's incredibly unhelpful. No scholar quotes a document of a couple thousand years without first putting forth the context required to understand what is being said.
What's quoted there is a reference to something older. Something we now know as Micah 7.
This is part of a passage, about the redemption day of Israel, as a people, when they finally turn their way back to God... And find that they're divided, and that He will only save some of them. It's one of the early prophecies about the Messiah, who will come to free them... But each faith belongs to each individual. And so, you cannot know who will be saved.
The quotation from Jesus is twofold.
Here, in Matthew, is when he sends them out into the country. He is saying He is the Messiah, sending them.
He is saying that the teachings of Messiah will bring discord, and may act as a home-wrecker. Because it will bring uncertainty to everyone.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the context and, yes, I should have prefaced it with the point I was trying to make rather than inserting it on its own. I've edited my comment above to clarify a bit.
I know of no conservative church outside the US that supports any such thing.
I am truly and deeply sorry that your evangelistic faith is getting dragged through the mud in this way. In my experience the label you were struggling to name is generally evangelical for mainstream US discourse even if it's not the most theologically sound differentiator to pick.
In seeing these 'churches' operating and the resistance to them growing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive theological shift in the church at large in response.
I feel that as religion declines in society, those on the fringes are slowly becoming the new norm, at least to the general public. You don't see people who accept gay members into their congregations in the news for actually being decent human beings, you see the loudmouths who protest at veterans' funerals and preach about how the government is out to get them.
Extremist preachers alienate many potential members, but keep a tight grip on those who are susceptible to that kind of rhetoric, and are able to nickel and dime them until the cows come home and encourage them to vote for certain candidates. The fact that their message of hate and cult-like devotion scares many people can be skewed as proof that they're right, and that those who do not fall in line are part of Satan's attempts to lead their flock astray, further reinforcing blind faith.
I don't think there is a real cure for it, it's difficult to reason with people who are in the grip of hardline preachers since you are viewed as one of Satan's minions.
I think you're confusing something here.
I ranted against hatred. I despise being associated with those people.
What gets called conservative Christianity is denounced by the church, the world over.
Luther's writings lead not just to the end of slavery in Britain, but the beginnings of rehabilitation over punishment.
My Messiah had a terrorist in his inner circle, and a whore among his close friends.
The bigoted hatred of others in the name of God is nothing more than what the Pharisees preached in Jesus' day. He cleared the temple with a whip that he hand-braided that day.
It isn't conservative Christianity.
Its a cult that has no room for Christ.
I'll play devil's advocate a bit here:
In order for the law to mean anything, it must be enforced. Most evangelicals I know do support the idea of rehabilitation and forgiveness, at least in theory.
If we are a nation of laws, we can't just choose to ignore our laws regarding immigration. We can make immigration easier to do legally via legislation so there isn't such a need for people to come illegally, but we can't just let people come in willy-nilly and live undocumented in the shadows of the legal system.
Helping the poor, sick, and hungry is extremely important, but that should not be the function of the government. We should not be dependent on government support to survive. Ideally, these functions should be handled by local churches and charitable institutions rather than being part of a giant federal bureaucracy given how inefficiently we know government performs.
This boils down to the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. Starting from the assumption that LGBT behavior is contrary to God's intended design, LGBT individuals should be treated with love and respect, but public policy should not endorse such behavior that is detrimental to society.
I'd love to hear s4b3r6's response, too. But you answered different questions than were asked.
Regardless of what the law is, conservative ideology promotes limited immigration. How is that policy stance compatible with Christianity? In other words, would not a Christian seek to change the laws to be favorable to expanded immigration?
Wrt crime and law and order, again the question was not one of whether we should enforce laws, but rather what laws should we have, and how should we enforce them? Should we have 'vice' laws? Would Jesus really promote those? And in cases where the crime is one of mental health or poor raising, should we not demonstrate love instead of punishment, if we call ourselves at all Christ like?
WRT lgbtq folks, why should the state impose morality based sanctions on these people, excluding them in any way? Surely, as Christian people, we reserve only to god the power to judge?
I think you forget that we humans. We do not have unlimited compassion, love, and understanding. It's entirely possible to accept that an ideal society would not have immigration laws, but that the shortcomings of humanity make that all but impossible. It's not only possible, but practically guaranteed that we cannot have a society without laws as humans are, by design, imperfect sinners.
Some of the questions you pose are more easily answered than others. I do not think there is a direct cost to anyone wrt lgbtq+ rights. Anyone who tries to follow in Jesus's footsteps would quickly note that. But expanding immigration hurts jobs and law and order exists to protect people from harm, so they are much more difficult to accommodate in a truly loving and compassionate matter.
I certainly agree with you. Many of the conservative positions cannot be reasonably squared with Christ's teachings. Most churches don't actually teach these more extreme positions though and those usually tend to come from people who are only nominally Christian who use the Bible to prop up their bigotry.
A more devil's advocate-ish answer to this I can think of: love thy neighbour while they are your neighbours, but when they come start living in your living room, they are not the neighbour anymore, so things might change.
Evangelical Christians are no strangers to hypocrisy, although I personally feel that their full-throated support of Trump may constitute a new low. It's just more proof that evangelical Christianity has lost any sort of spiritual and moral core and now more closely represents a right-wing political and social club than an actual religion.
Some days I hope they are right and Jesus is real and does come back. Any intelligent reading of the new testament would indicate that he would have a lot more in common with anarchists, socialists, and other leftists than with these selfish scumbags. Jesus upending tables in a prosperity gospel mega-church would be a deeply satisfying sight for sure.
Liberty University has always been like this. It exists to push regressive religious policies and lifestyles. They are famously anti-gay and reprimand simple things like attending a dance or viewing R-rated movies. There are other religious colleges with similar leanings (see BYU for the Mormon flavor), but Liberty is the most vocal and visible of all of them.
It's really funny how you never hear any of these people who are deeply concerned about free speech on campus speak out against Liberty U and similar institutions.
Kind of an ironic name