The Coming Evangelical Collapse

[knapplc]

You're describing extremism. It takes many forms. For you it's religion, for SOCAL it's government.

Maybe you could describe for me a non-extreme religion and what it would be composed of? I honestly and sincerely don't know what you're referring to, at least not exactly.

You have your bug about religion and SOCAL has his about government. For SOCAL every form of government is a "coercive monopoly on theft and violence." For you, every religion is "extreme." You may use different phrases once in a while, but like SOCAL, the song remains the same.

That wasn't even an attempt to describe something non-extreme. I actuality have gone out of my way to separate fundamentalism from liberalism in Christianity about five times. My point is that they both come from the same root, or are different expressions of the same basic ideas.

You're right, it wasn't. It was simply a description of your conversation style. There's as much sense in debating religion with you as there is debating government with SOCAL. He has his mind made up and so do you.

 

[Husker_x]

You're describing extremism. It takes many forms. For you it's religion, for SOCAL it's government.

Maybe you could describe for me a non-extreme religion and what it would be composed of? I honestly and sincerely don't know what you're referring to, at least not exactly.

You have your bug about religion and SOCAL has his about government. For SOCAL every form of government is a "coercive monopoly on theft and violence." For you, every religion is "extreme." You may use different phrases once in a while, but like SOCAL, the song remains the same.

That wasn't even an attempt to describe something non-extreme. I actuality have gone out of my way to separate fundamentalism from liberalism in Christianity about five times. My point is that they both come from the same root, or are different expressions of the same basic ideas.

You're right, it wasn't. It was simply a description of your conversation style. There's as much sense in debating religion with you as there is debating government with SOCAL. He has his mind made up and so do you.

That's a pretty bold statement considering that you've never once deigned to do so in any real depth. On the contrary, my friend, I am completely open to changing my mind about anything I believe if there's a good reason to. I don't have an a priori position, here, that has to be true, that must be true, or that I'm damned to hell if for some reason I decide it isn't true.

I'd love to meet God if he/she/it exists. I'm unconvinced that he/she/it does, and will remain that way only as long as the evidence and philosophy remain unconvincing.

 

[Landlord]

Regardless of character, honesty, justice, kindness, or virtue at all, if you take the bible at its word, failing to accept that a Jewish carpenter and rabbi was cruelly murdered and then resurrected in first century Palestine––events which you didn't witness and otherwise defy every scientific precedent available to us––makes you worthy of eternal torture. What else apart from religion could make someone believe something like this? What other force besides pure credulity could account for this worldview? Now it's possible to call yourself a Christian and not believe this, but you'll have to admit up front that you've given up any claims to orthodoxy and you've pretty much dismissed the bible as a source of anything but interesting stories. That would leave us only then with the question why not drop the label?

This isn't entirely accurate, at least not according to how I've read the Bible. This is how I see it:

We are called to live moral, just and kind lives above anything. If you do live your life that way, an inescapable consequence is that you are always searching for what is "right". God rewards that, because that is the ideal human nature. If you have never heard the gospel, or had a thought about God, or didn't know anything about Jesus, as long as you live your life to the best of your ability and are constantly seeking to know and do what is truly right, then either God will bless you via sending someone into your life for you to hear the good news, or it's of no consequence and you are forgiven and saved through grace regardless. I'm yet to decide if I believe that you have to personally know about and believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, but if you do and you are seeking righteousness then God will give you that knowledge.

A bit off-topic, I just wanted to throw that out there.

I think it's very much on topic, actually.

So when Jesus says––or is claimed to have said––that "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me" (emphasis mine), that's not to be taken literally?

How about Romans 9? "And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Your scenario above seems to be an invention. An understandable invention, but not present in the bible. It's also a Catch-22 like the kind kind that Mormons use when they come knocking at your door. They hand you a book, tell you to pray, and if you're sincere enough, God will reveal himself to you. Well that's terrific. If it works, God is true. And if it doesn't happen, then I wasn't sincere enough, but God is still true.

In my situation, I have heard the good news. A thousand versions of it, some contradictory, all slightly different from one another. My response to these glad tidings is that I think it hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated. No argument or evidence has been presented to me so far that would make me believe it. Which then leaves me with experience and usefulness. To the first, the experiences of every religion resemble each other so much that I find them better explained with psychology than divinity. About usefulness, a much bigger issue but the summary is that while I think religion certainly has its uses in peoples' lives, there's nothing about that I've seen that makes me think we couldn't do without it.

1. Jesus quote is to be taken literally, but even when done so does not necessarily mean "you must know me personally to come to the father". It might mean that very thing, but I see it as Jesus' death being a bridge to God, with the issue of knowing Him left unclear.

2. The story in Acts 10, at least to me, seems to give credence to my beliefs stated above. Admittedly, this is a different situation than a primitive nomad living in some uninhabited part of Africa, but I believe it to be similar. There are a few other examples that could support this, but the biggest reason I believe it is real life stories and testimonies I have heard from people all around the world, a lot of them that I know personally. I freely admit that doesn't make it true, not by a long shot, and it is indeed a catch-22, but that doesn't make it inherently false or manufactured.

 

[Manhattan]

I hope there is an evangelical collapse. As much as a conservative as I am, I am curious to see how conservative this country really is without religion in the picture, and whether they believe what they believe because they feel compelled to because of their religion or because they reached a logical or rational conclusion on their political beliefs. I am of the opinion that most conservatives in this country aren't - they just want a big government that does everything they want and coddles them just as much as they complain the Democrats do. It is still a mystery to me how conservatives in "Red" states complain about things like welfare when "Blue" states like New York get like $.80 back on every federal tax dollar and the "Red" states get closer to $1.50...

Everyone seems to want big government (show me a time when federal government didn't expand...), but some people are honest about it and some people say the opposite purely as a political maneuver played on people's emotions and religious convictions. I would like to know where people like me - Libertarians I guess - honestly stand without these people.

 

[huskertim]

Here's where I grow suspicious of this line of argumentation. According to all kinds of believers, their particular religion isn't a human construct. It's a divine construct, a revealed construct, and in many cases including Christianity, the final and absolute construct. Regardless of character, honesty, justice, kindness, or virtue at all, if you take the bible at its word, failing to accept that a Jewish carpenter and rabbi was cruelly murdered and then resurrected in first century Palestine––events which you didn't witness and otherwise defy every scientific precedent available to us––makes you worthy of eternal torture. What else apart from religion could make someone believe something like this? What other force besides pure credulity could account for this worldview? Now it's possible to call yourself a Christian and not believe this, but you'll have to admit up front that you've given up any claims to orthodoxy and you've pretty much dismissed the bible as a source of anything but interesting stories. That would leave us only then with the question why not drop the label?

If religion disappeared tomorrow people would still do bad things, sure. A sucker would still be born every minute. But nestled within the very seed of religion is faith, believing or claiming to know things you don't and can't know. When preachers in even the most liberal, toothless churches mount the pulpit to tell us who God is or what he wants or why things happen on earth or how God loves, hates, disapproves, or condones this, that, or the other thing––they say it so confidently, so matter-of-factly, yet so rarely does anyone bother to ask them how they came by this information, or why they should believe it.

It seems to me that if you're willing to act upon what you perceive to be the will of gods, you can believe anything, justify anything. And history both ancient and modern show us what people are willing to do when they think they're acting on God's orders. You've probably heard that even the inquisitors tortured people into accepting Christ because it was better to suffer temporarily on earth than to suffer eternally in hell. And where did they learn about hell? From religion.

I'm sorry my reply is less than timely.

I think you have a common misconception here. I see nowhere in the Bible that failure to believe Christ is the son of God is a sin. Christianity is based on the idea that we are born in sin. (Original Sin). The idea is that God/perfection is incompatable with sin/iniperfection. The penalty for sin is death, construed for the poposes of the Bible as separation from God. Separation from the devine is the definition of Hell. My experience with theology leads me to think that most accounts of hell are simply illustations of that unimaginable misery.

The thing that sets Chritianity apart from other religions is the concept of grace.

When Christ explains that you ain't gittin to heaven without me, he's simply saying that we are incapable of perfection and hence unable to pay the penalty of our sin and by the way, I'll even sacrafice myself to pay for your sins.

Let's try a really bad analogy. I want a dozen eggs, they cost 87 cents, I have 25 cents, a stranger offers to pay for my eggs; if I say no out of pride I don't get the eggs. Is the stranger to blame? Did he dam me to an eggless existence, or did I do so with my own foolish pride? Either way, I ain't gittin me no eggs.

Christ obviouly understood the flawed nature of man, having been one, and knew we didn't stand a chance at redemtion by our own means.

 

[huskertim]

I hope there is an evangelical collapse. As much as a conservative as I am, I am curious to see how conservative this country really is without religion in the picture, and whether they believe what they believe because they feel compelled to because of their religion or because they reached a logical or rational conclusion on their political beliefs. I am of the opinion that most conservatives in this country aren't - they just want a big government that does everything they want and coddles them just as much as they complain the Democrats do. It is still a mystery to me how conservatives in "Red" states complain about things like welfare when "Blue" states like New York get like $.80 back on every federal tax dollar and the "Red" states get closer to $1.50...

Everyone seems to want big government (show me a time when federal government didn't expand...), but some people are honest about it and some people say the opposite purely as a political maneuver played on people's emotions and religious convictions. I would like to know where people like me - Libertarians I guess - honestly stand without these people.

It's an interesting question. Speaking to the other side of it, the disunion of politics and religion would benefit religion as well. Religions tend to find strenth in stife and atophy in comfort, after all, who needs Gods when you've got a 52" HDTV and a fridge full of goodies.

As to your libertarian leanings, I suspect that word has a wide range of meaing depending on who's using it. Most who do, simply like to think they are somehow unique from the unwashed masses.

 

[Husker_x]

I'm sorry my reply is less than timely.

Take all the time you need.

I think you have a common misconception here. I see nowhere in the Bible that failure to believe Christ is the son of God is a sin. Christianity is based on the idea that we are born in sin. (Original Sin). The idea is that God/perfection is incompatable with sin/iniperfection. The penalty for sin is death, construed for the poposes of the Bible as separation from God. Separation from the devine is the definition of Hell. My experience with theology leads me to think that most accounts of hell are simply illustations of that unimaginable misery.The thing that sets Chritianity apart from other religions is the concept of grace.

When Christ explains that you ain't gittin to heaven without me, he's simply saying that we are incapable of perfection and hence unable to pay the penalty of our sin and by the way, I'll even sacrafice myself to pay for your sins.

Egg analogies are pretty apt here. Like twelve of one, a dozen of the other. Your position is that if I accept Christ I can spare myself unimaginable misery. It then follows that failing to accept him results in eternal damnation. Since we're playing a rigged game, and my character, honesty, charity, or general interest in the welfare of my fellow man has nothing to do with my salvation from an original sin I took no part in and had no hand in committing, this shifting of the burden of responsibility is both cruel and ridiculous. I didn't ask to be a sinful creature. I don't want to be a sinful creature. I was made that way, created sick and ordered to be well.

We also can't forget that God is the dungeon master here. He set up the game in the first place. He created a world foreknowing that the supremacy of his creation was going to disappoint him, and that this disappointment, though it couldn't harm or threaten him in any way, would result in the eternal misery of billions upon billions upon billions of men, women and children. And the best he could come up with to solve his self-created problem was to send himself to sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole for his own rules. Strange as this solution seems, it gets even worse in that we have no original account of any of it. Even if you fly in the face of scholarship and believe that the disciples wrote any of this down, it's still anecdotal, and we have none of the autographs, or the copies of the autographs, or the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the autographs.

Let's try a really bad analogy. I want a dozen eggs, they cost 87 cents, I have 25 cents, a stranger offers to pay for my eggs; if I say no out of pride I don't get the eggs. Is the stranger to blame? Did he dam me to an eggless existence, or did I do so with my own foolish pride? Either way, I ain't gittin me no eggs.
Christ obviouly understood the flawed nature of man, having been one, and knew we didn't stand a chance at redemtion by our own means.

Your analogy fails because the stranger didn't create you eggless and order you to buy eggs. He didn't make the only way to get eggs accepting fantastic stories from the iron age in a culture awash in ignorance, illiteracy, and superstition. The stranger doesn't say allow me to buy your eggs for you or I will kill you, then go to work on you after your mortal coil has gone cold.

 

[huskertim]

I'm sorry my reply is less than timely.

Take all the time you need.

I think you have a common misconception here. I see nowhere in the Bible that failure to believe Christ is the son of God is a sin. Christianity is based on the idea that we are born in sin. (Original Sin). The idea is that God/perfection is incompatable with sin/iniperfection. The penalty for sin is death, construed for the poposes of the Bible as separation from God. Separation from the devine is the definition of Hell. My experience with theology leads me to think that most accounts of hell are simply illustations of that unimaginable misery.The thing that sets Chritianity apart from other religions is the concept of grace.

When Christ explains that you ain't gittin to heaven without me, he's simply saying that we are incapable of perfection and hence unable to pay the penalty of our sin and by the way, I'll even sacrafice myself to pay for your sins.

Egg analogies are pretty apt here. Like twelve of one, a dozen of the other. Your position is that if I accept Christ I can spare myself unimaginable misery. It then follows that failing to accept him results in eternal damnation. Since we're playing a rigged game, and my character, honesty, charity, or general interest in the welfare of my fellow man has nothing to do with my salvation from an original sin I took no part in and had no hand in committing, this shifting of the burden of responsibility is both cruel and ridiculous. I didn't ask to be a sinful creature. I don't want to be a sinful creature. I was made that way, created sick and ordered to be well.

We also can't forget that God is the dungeon master here. He set up the game in the first place. He created a world foreknowing that the supremacy of his creation was going to disappoint him, and that this disappointment, though it couldn't harm or threaten him in any way, would result in the eternal misery of billions upon billions upon billions of men, women and children. And the best he could come up with to solve his self-created problem was to send himself to sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole for his own rules. Strange as this solution seems, it gets even worse in that we have no original account of any of it. Even if you fly in the face of scholarship and believe that the disciples wrote any of this down, it's still anecdotal, and we have none of the autographs, or the copies of the autographs, or the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the autographs.

Let's try a really bad analogy. I want a dozen eggs, they cost 87 cents, I have 25 cents, a stranger offers to pay for my eggs; if I say no out of pride I don't get the eggs. Is the stranger to blame? Did he dam me to an eggless existence, or did I do so with my own foolish pride? Either way, I ain't gittin me no eggs.
Christ obviouly understood the flawed nature of man, having been one, and knew we didn't stand a chance at redemtion by our own means.

Your analogy fails because the stranger didn't create you eggless and order you to buy eggs. He didn't make the only way to get eggs accepting fantastic stories from the iron age in a culture awash in ignorance, illiteracy, and superstition. The stranger doesn't say allow me to buy your eggs for you or I will kill you, then go to work on you after your mortal coil has gone cold.

The analogy wasn't intended to explain the entirety of human exisistence, though that would be one hell of a feat, but merely the idea that we are offered through grace that which we are unable to obtain ourselves and that ,in typical human fasion, the sinner blames God when he refuses this gift.

As to why God would create a world as flawed as this, that is the ultimate question persued by clerics and philosopers alike. Me, I'm just this guy, ya know? I wonder, do you ever ask why God would have created the beauty of this world as well?

The thought that our actions and our attitudes do not "count" towards salvation presumes a lack of accountability which is not what I have said. Call me a Calvanist if you like, but I believe firmly that our deeds and our attitudes reflect what is in our souls. The hard of heart will be unable to accept the grace of God or responsibilities for his own inequities.

Many religions do think you can earn salvation, and I celebrate their service both to God and their fellow man. I simply do not see how any one of us is able to be worthy of God's presence so I choose to serve in love rather than for the reward of heaven.

While the logic you use to argue your point is fundamentally sound, the tenor of your writing seems to express a bitterness. If all I'm saying is fairy tales then surely you've no need of such venom. I hope I haven't said anything that you would construe as a personal attack. If so, I do apologize, then again ,I may be misreading you, in which case, I also apologize.

 

[Husker_x]

The analogy wasn't intended to explain the entirety of human exisistence, though that would be one hell of a feat, but merely the idea that we are offered through grace that which we are unable to obtain ourselves and that ,in typical human fasion, the sinner blames God when he refuses this gift.

And it still falls short in expressing even that, because the truth behind the fiction is that salvation isn't a free gift. I'm still waiting for the messenger who says, "Well a long time ago this guy in a garden really screwed up, but don't worry, God's got it covered. You can go back to what you were doing." At which time we could all breathe a sigh of relief. Instead we find that God's not playing the part of the altruist. You have to at least think that some pretty amazing feats of anti-science happened a few thousand years ago––all based off non-eyewitness accounts of which the originals are lost to history (never mind the fact that the New Testament makes no mention at all of its eventual creation or inspiration in the first place). Fail to do that, and you eat cold porridge for a very long, long time.

As to why God would create a world as flawed as this, that is the ultimate question persued by clerics and philosopers alike. Me, I'm just this guy, ya know? I wonder, do you ever ask why God would have created the beauty of this world as well?
The thought that our actions and our attitudes do not "count" towards salvation presumes a lack of accountability which is not what I have said. Call me a Calvanist if you like, but I believe firmly that our deeds and our attitudes reflect what is in our souls. The hard of heart will be unable to accept the grace of God or responsibilities for his own inequities.

Many religions do think you can earn salvation, and I celebrate their service both to God and their fellow man. I simply do not see how any one of us is able to be worthy of God's presence so I choose to serve in love rather than for the reward of heaven.

To the first bolded question, no, not as such. First, because I'm still waiting for a single good reason to think any god, much less your God, created anything. Second, the creation accounts of all the major monotheisms are incorrect and wildly discrepant with known, demonstrable facts about our planet and universe.

In Calvinism, why are the hard of heart the way they are, and are unable to accept grace? Care to guess? Well for anyone following along, here's the reason: Because God hardens their hearts. There might not be a doctrine more wicked, more repugnant, more undermining of religion than Calvinism. If it is true, and God predestined the lion's share of souls to the day for the pit of hell (or predestined ANY souls for the pit of hell) to fulfill his lust for vengeance, then you may call your god all powerful, you may call him all knowing, but you may not call him good, or loving. He would be the all-cruel, all-merciless, all-pitiless, and all-torturous supreme despot of the cosmos, and even if he did exist, any thinking person would rather he didn't, and instead wish that nothing had ever been created at all to spare those unfortunate victims of God's wrath their fate.

While the logic you use to argue your point is fundamentally sound, the tenor of your writing seems to express a bitterness. If all I'm saying is fairy tales then surely you've no need of such venom. I hope I haven't said anything that you would construe as a personal attack. If so, I do apologize, then again ,I may be misreading you, in which case, I also apologize.

No, you've never once to my memory given a personal attack in place of an argument. In fact as far as I can see you've been perfectly open, honest and fair in our discussions. The tenor of my writing isn't meant to express bitterness, but some is bound to creep in. First you have to understand that I have completely freed myself from any modern notions that someone's faith is a taboo. I approach it with the same critical mindset as I would any other fantastic claim people declare is the absolute truth. What happens is someone tells me a story, like that Jesus loves me and died on a cross for my sins. I then take the same information and tell the story again, except include everything they left out. Usually it's not as huggable, and someone gets offended, but I try my best never to make offending someone the reason I make the argument I do or write the way I do. I argue in the voice that I think will best deconstruct the point I'm taking on. Even still you should know I keep a pretty good humor about this discussion; it's not always easy to detect in print.