BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: DavidGYoung on April 22, 2023, 03:21:30 AM
-
Which of these, if any, do you think might eventually disappear from Christianity over the next fifty years or so?
Creationism
The signs-and-wonders movement
Prosperity theology
"You won't be able to understand this tenet of Christianity/this part of the Bible until you are my age and have had my life experiences."
Fundamentalism
That annoying Kim Hill song with the hand gestures
-
None of them
No idea what the last one is
-
None. And if they do die out in the West, they'll spring up somewhere else. Africa is currently playing 4th century with a lot of its theology.
-
For the Christians here, is any one of the items on the list a personal pet-hate of yours?
-
For the Christians here, is any one of the items on the list a personal pet-hate of yours?
Prosperity theology. I detest charlatans who get rich bilking gullible people, then use their lucre and extravagant lifestyle to convince givers of the validity of their prosperity Gospel. Such hypocritical hucksters will stand before God one day and be held accountable.
-
For the Christians here, is any one of the items on the list a personal pet-hate of yours?
Anyone that eisegetes and does not properly proclaim the truth. Crosses all spectra.
-
For the Christians here, is any one of the items on the list a personal pet-hate of yours?
Self declared prophets who miss prophecies and don't learn from it.
-
Within today's branches of Christianity, is there much active opposition to any of the items on my list?
I remember when I was a Christian that some sermons ferociously denounced prosperity theology. However, they were usually preaching to the converted anyway.
-
If a pastor/preacher simply proclaims the truth from the text, you don't have to waste your time pointing out counterfeits.
-
But will the people in the counterfeit movements even attend such churches?
-
Sure.
What you call "counterfeit" has a significant kernel of truth imbedded, usually horribly misapplied.
I know plenty of folks that believe what you would call "counterfeit" that attend traditional baptist, methodist, AoG churches every week.
-
A minor point of order:
I am using the word 'counterfeit' to refer to whatever you were calling a counterfeit in your earlier post.
-
I was using the term as the antithesis of sound doctrine in general.
In my last post I was referring to your list from the OP
Sorry for the lack of clarity
-
Imagine that the person giving the sermons was, as you describe, proclaiming the truth from the text.
How confident are you that either of the following would occur?
A member of the congregation who has heard a different opinion of what that part of the text says or means would conclude that they are now hearing the truth.
A member of the congregation who has heard a falsehood not directly related to the text but often cited in relation to it, e.g. they falsely believe that 'evolution describes humans as evolving from monkeys', would cease to believe that falsehood?
-
I remember when I was a Christian
Just curious, what made you decide to leave Christianity?
-
Imagine that the person giving the sermons was, as you describe, proclaiming the truth from the text.
How confident are you that either of the following would occur?
A member of the congregation who has heard a different opinion of what that part of the text says or means would conclude that they are now hearing the truth.
A member of the congregation who has heard a falsehood not directly related to the text but often cited in relation to it, e.g. they falsely believe that 'evolution describes humans as evolving from monkeys', would cease to believe that falsehood?
The first happens all the time
Nothing in the text addresses monkeys in relation to evolution so I don’t think the second is a possibility
-
Reply #14
For the last six years I was a Christian, the only reason I believed it to be true was the resurrection argument.
While doing a theology degree, I called that argument into question and found it wanting.
After that, I had no reason to stay a Christian. By the time I graduated, I was an agnostic and a year later I was an atheist, a position I have remained in ever since.
-
Thank you David.
I understand the logic.
And logic alone often won't work, I can tell by experience.
If the Gospel message doesn't sink a couple of decimeters from the brain to the heart it might remain unfruitful.
May the Lord bless you.
-
Reply #14
For the last six years I was a Christian, the only reason I believed it to be true was the resurrection argument.
While doing a theology degree, I called that argument into question and found it wanting.
After that, I had no reason to stay a Christian. By the time I graduated, I was an agnostic and a year later I was an atheist, a position I have remained in ever since.
That breaks my heart.
-
Reply #14
For the last six years I was a Christian, the only reason I believed it to be true was the resurrection argument.
While doing a theology degree, I called that argument into question and found it wanting.
After that, I had no reason to stay a Christian. By the time I graduated, I was an agnostic and a year later I was an atheist, a position I have remained in ever since.
You must have been quite into Craig, Ehrman, Grudem, Lennox, Moreland, et al. That's a sad story, in any case. I did a couple of theology things as well, though in my case to try to figure out my dysphoria before I maybe inevitably went trans -- I never did figure it out. Still Christian though, depending on who you ask.
If HisLeast is lurking, he'd be an interesting chat.
-
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the core truth and life blood of Christianity. It has been both hailed as a glorious, supreme truth, and reviled and ridiculed as nonsense for most of the past 2000 years. Ultimately the individual must assess the matter and decide the truth in his or her own heart. Some, such as Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have rejected the idea. Others, such as C.S. Lewis, Antony Flew, and Lee Strobel carefully weighed the evidence as non-believers, and were ultimately convinced. God is an equal opportunity Savior, and allows man to use the privilege of free will to either embrace salvation or reject it.
A guilty man tried and convicted of a capital crime, awaiting execution on death row would be foolish to turn down an undeserved full pardon granting life and freedom. Failure to embrace an opportunity for eternal life and avoid damnation in the lake of fire is an infinitely more critical decision -- the horrific consequences of which will torment an individual for eternity.
-
A guilty man tried and convicted of a capital crime, awaiting execution on death row would be foolish to turn down an undeserved full pardon granting life and freedom. Failure to embrace an opportunity for eternal life and avoid damnation in the lake of fire is an infinitely more critical decision -- the horrific consequences of which will torment an individual for eternity.
I have some quibbles with this analogy. This guy was tried and convicted, so he went through some legal system where was a trial there is no real equivalent within christianity, I think we are supposed to take it for granted that at some point in the distant past humanity was tried and convicted but none of us were here for that. so It's more a guy is born into a prison that happens to look like the earth and there are few things that would indicate that he is convicted or that there was a trial except the claims of a book and some people that believe in this book. So a guy in a death row cell sort of understands the first part in a very visceral way that we can only take on faith, so when he is offered a free pardon, it makes sense for him to accept. Even if he doesn't trust that the offer is legitimate or in good faith all he has to do is say the words and/or sign the papers and it doesn't really matter if he doesn't actually believe it in his heart. Again in our situation I cannot simply make the motions of accepting the pardon, I must actually believe it , and I have to be genuinely sorry about all of my sins. If it were a simple matter of saying a bunch of stuff that I don't believe in order to elicit the response that I want or more likely to cover my bases then I might do that but this isn't really how it works. You gotta believe a bunch of stuff that is (according to some) left just ambiguous enough that you cannot quite get there through reason alone, you must have faith. Not for nothing when people don't include the huge faith component in their salvific analogies it feels like they are glossing some critical stuffs.
-
Reply #19
All but three of Bart Ehrman's published works came out after I graduated. The three books that were in print did not, as far as I can tell, make it into the LBC (now LST) library. The other names on your list are also a bit after my time.
-
Reply #19
All but three of Bart Ehrman's published works came out after I graduated. The three books that were in print did not, as far as I can tell, make it into the LBC (now LST) library. The other names on your list are also a bit after my time.
Who did you read?
-
Almost everyone from Tertullian and Origen to Barth and Moltmann. A BA course has a lot of reading lists, depending on which sub-topics you choose.
-
Reply #14
For the last six years I was a Christian, the only reason I believed it to be true was the resurrection argument. While doing a theology degree, I called that argument into question and found it wanting.
I wonder if you are familiar with the philosophical reasoning of the martyr deaths from 11 of the 12 disciples from Jesus. Anyway here goes - Jesus ordered the twelve to preach the Gospel to all nations, from the early church records we read that they did, we also read that 11 of the 12 died a cruel death because of their faith. They gave up their life, were tortured but because they had seen, touched, eat with the risen Christ they would not retract. They KNEW the resurrection was a fact. What if they made up the story and deliberately preached a lie, what sane person would die for a deliberate lie when push comes to shove? I can not mention one person from history, let alone 11 for the same reason.
Now one can argue, 18 terrorists died for their faith on 9/11, so what? But... there is a big difference between believing and knowing. Muslims believe in the Quran, Christians believe in the Bible but both can not know if what is written is factual, both only believe. Many have died for their faith throughout history, what makes the martyr deaths of the 11 disciples so different is that they knew the resurrection was a fact because they were witnesses of the risen Christ.
A word of carefulness, it remains a question how reliable the stories of the 12 disciples are as written in the early church documentation, for a reference check this article (https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html) for example or do more research yourself.
What counts for me, even if only 2 or 3 stories from the 11 is true that's good enough for me to see that as strong evidence for the resurrected Christ, no sane person let himself tortured to death for a deliberate lie. No other religion offers such evidence also. Note, I am (have been) avoiding the word proof.
After that, I had no reason to stay a Christian. By the time I graduated, I was an agnostic and a year later I was an atheist, a position I have remained in ever since.
I am always interested to hear from people who call themselves atheist, by how much percent? 80%, 90%, 100%?
-
A guilty man tried and convicted of a capital crime, awaiting execution on death row would be foolish to turn down an undeserved full pardon granting life and freedom. Failure to embrace an opportunity for eternal life and avoid damnation in the lake of fire is an infinitely more critical decision -- the horrific consequences of which will torment an individual for eternity.
I have some quibbles with this analogy. This guy was tried and convicted, so he went through some legal system where was a trial there is no real equivalent within christianity, I think we are supposed to take it for granted that at some point in the distant past humanity was tried and convicted but none of us were here for that. so It's more a guy is born into a prison that happens to look like the earth and there are few things that would indicate that he is convicted or that there was a trial except the claims of a book and some people that believe in this book. So a guy in a death row cell sort of understands the first part in a very visceral way that we can only take on faith, so when he is offered a free pardon, it makes sense for him to accept. Even if he doesn't trust that the offer is legitimate or in good faith all he has to do is say the words and/or sign the papers and it doesn't really matter if he doesn't actually believe it in his heart. Again in our situation I cannot simply make the motions of accepting the pardon, I must actually believe it , and I have to be genuinely sorry about all of my sins. If it were a simple matter of saying a bunch of stuff that I don't believe in order to elicit the response that I want or more likely to cover my bases then I might do that but this isn't really how it works. You gotta believe a bunch of stuff that is (according to some) left just ambiguous enough that you cannot quite get there through reason alone, you must have faith. Not for nothing when people don't include the huge faith component in their salvific analogies it feels like they are glossing some critical stuffs.
Yes, faith is critical in believing that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that His blood can cleanse you from sin unto salvation, while receiving a pardon from the Governor is simple acceptance. However, the analogy is valid in that in both instances, the individual is guilty and awaiting punishment, but spared due to an undeserved pardon.
-
A guilty man tried and convicted of a capital crime, awaiting execution on death row would be foolish to turn down an undeserved full pardon granting life and freedom. Failure to embrace an opportunity for eternal life and avoid damnation in the lake of fire is an infinitely more critical decision -- the horrific consequences of which will torment an individual for eternity.
I have some quibbles with this analogy. This guy was tried and convicted, so he went through some legal system where was a trial there is no real equivalent within christianity, I think we are supposed to take it for granted that at some point in the distant past humanity was tried and convicted but none of us were here for that. so It's more a guy is born into a prison that happens to look like the earth and there are few things that would indicate that he is convicted or that there was a trial except the claims of a book and some people that believe in this book. So a guy in a death row cell sort of understands the first part in a very visceral way that we can only take on faith, so when he is offered a free pardon, it makes sense for him to accept. Even if he doesn't trust that the offer is legitimate or in good faith all he has to do is say the words and/or sign the papers and it doesn't really matter if he doesn't actually believe it in his heart. Again in our situation I cannot simply make the motions of accepting the pardon, I must actually believe it , and I have to be genuinely sorry about all of my sins. If it were a simple matter of saying a bunch of stuff that I don't believe in order to elicit the response that I want or more likely to cover my bases then I might do that but this isn't really how it works. You gotta believe a bunch of stuff that is (according to some) left just ambiguous enough that you cannot quite get there through reason alone, you must have faith. Not for nothing when people don't include the huge faith component in their salvific analogies it feels like they are glossing some critical stuffs.
Yes, faith is critical in believing that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that His blood can cleanse you from sin unto salvation, while receiving a pardon from the Governor is simple acceptance. However, the analogy is valid in that in both instances, the individual is guilty and awaiting punishment, but spared due to an undeserved pardon.
yeah, that is true. I suppose it's my own stuff that makes me sensitive to the faith aspect of statements like your OP, but it isn't really critical to the point that you wanted to get across.
-
Almost everyone from Tertullian and Origen to Barth and Moltmann. A BA course has a lot of reading lists, depending on which sub-topics you choose.
A BA course does have a lot of reading lists. I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever do one.