Do you believe Christianity is in crisis?

[Christianity in crisis?]

I would really enjoy a chat about the visible church and the great amount of disunity found throughout the history of the church. The 21st century actually seems worst with much abuse of scripture interpretation, causing more and more divisions among Christians. Have you made your rounds through the various Christian circles? I believe the doctrine of sola scriptura has been abused, and don't believe the answer is the Catholic Church, nor a form of restoration theology.

[Slopeshoulder]

I would really enjoy a chat about the visible church and the great amount of disunity found throughout the history of the church. The 21st century actually seems worst with much abuse of scripture interpretation, causing more and more divisions among Christians. Have you made your rounds through the various Christian circles? I believe the doctrine of sola scriptura has been abused, and don't believe the answer is the Catholic Church, nor a form of restoration theology.

Why do you privelege sola scriptura?

Who has abused scripture and how?

By what criteria would you discover or impose unity? Why is this a value to be sought?

Why not Catholic church or restoration theology?

To answer your question, yes, insofar as fundies haven't been muzzled and we all aren't yet progressive episcopalians. But that's just my opinion.

[Christianity in crisis?]

Do you really believe humanity has made progress of loving our neighbors as ourselves?

Wholesale slaughter of civilian populations in war is not as well approved of as when the allies fire-bombed Dresden. The ownership of other humans as slaves and chattel is no longer put forward by Christians as an acceptable ethical choice as it was 150 years ago. Most of the countries in the OECD are coming to the recognize that health care is not is best not left to private for-profit providers, but is a community responsibility. Yes, we're making progress.

That's not much of a debate if you read the front page of the newspaper everyday.

• Balto. Co. crime drops in first half of 2010
• Crime rate at 10-year low in the first half of 2010
• Chicago Murders Down, Crime Rate Drops For 21st Consecutive Month
• News briefs for October 5: Crime rates move downward
• Revellers praised for drop in crime rates
• Canada's crime rate has actually dropped 15 per cent since 1988

I believe humanity cannot solve our own problems from within because we are all broken beyond self-repair.

And some Christians think that atheists are negative and nihilistic! I believe that we have come this far and if we don't learn to live together and solve our problems, no one is going to do it for us. We humans have proven to be a resourceful, imaginative and clever bunch. We might just pull it off. I think that is a much better attitude than "we are all broken beyond self-repair".

Very well said, and some excellent points. I think Chrisitans and unbelievers both want a better world for all people. However, the difference is that Christians are looking outside themselves (God) to give them wisdom on how to make this a better world for all. Unbelievers look to themselves for wisdom on how to achieve this shared desire. The problem is that when we look to ourselves only, then we can potentially come up with six billion different opinions, leaving us in chaos. I don't believe humans have evolved in several thousand years of what all humans struggle from within, pride, self-centeredness, unable to love our neighbors as ourselves on a regular basis. It's an internal brokeness which is a universal condition which can only be rectified by our creator. Now, if you don't believe in a creator, you are left to yourself to change through your own ability. I don't think there is not enough evidence in the 21st century that mankind is changing. Do you leave your house unlocked at night? Do you leave your car key in the ignitiion and the car door unlocked? Are there parts in your city that you would not want to walk through late at night?

[Christianity in crisis?]

.

To be an agnostic, athesist, or Christian is a step of faith.

Replace “Christian� with “Theist�, add Ignostic, and that should cover nearly everyone. However, the term “faith� is inappropriate and should be replaced with “a matter of personal choice and opinion�. No “faith� is required in Non-Theism.

There are some realities such as we all die. And when we consider the size of the known universe, we are but a speck of dust.

Yes, humans are mortal and are insignificant at universe scale. Therefore, . . . . . what?

Many people seem to struggle with those concepts and often invent various mental constructs to make themselves seem more important or even “immortal� in some respect. Realism accepts the facts and deals with the real world we inhabit.

So, why are we here,

We are here because we were born. Animals, including homo sapiens, reproduce.

or what is your purpose in this life,

“Purpose� is decided by the individual for the individual. There is no evidence of a grand “purpose of life� – any more than flowers can be said to have “purpose�.

or is life just meaningless

Life is meaningless or meaningful for the individual according to individual decisions. Some make a lot from a little and others do just the opposite.

Many people chose to look for “meaning� outside themselves and their sphere of influence – often looking to one of the thousands of proposed “gods�.

and we should just do what gives us the most pleasure?

Some choose to devote their lives to pleasure, others find “meaning� and fulfillment through more outward focus – things beyond the self.

The US constitution is only applicable to us Americans, but does not really apply in a universal sense.

The Constitution is a legal document relating to governance of a society. It is not individually or universally applicable – and is not a code of ethics.

Thanks for the great discussion. IMO... it takes a giant leap of faith to be an athesist. On the next clear night, gaze at the stars and tell me that you can be certian that there is no God. How do you believe the known universe started?

[Christianity in crisis?]

Thanks for all of your stimulating thoughts.

Thank you for prodding.

I do enjoy a good conversation from different perspectives.

We all need to think about things from various perspectives.

To be an agnostic, atheist, or Christian is a step of faith.

I fail to see how agnosticism is a step of faith. Is it not a lack of faith?

There are some realities such as we all die.

We agree! There are those who deny this reality and think that there is some kind of afterlife.

And when we consider the size of the known universe, we are but a speck of dust. So, why are we here, or what is your purpose in this life, or is life just meaningless and we should just do what gives us the most pleasure?

False dichotomy. We are here. We make whatever meaning our lives have ourselves in our lives. Anything more is just wishful thinking

The US constitution is only applicable to us Americans, but does not really apply in a universal sense.

The US constitution is a truly amazing document. Considering the time and prevailing attitudes, it was a daring experiment, hugely ahead of its time. The principles expressed there have been tested and imitated in many other county's constitutions, including my own. My country's first constitution was an act of British Parliament. The British North America Act of 1867. How sad is that? We finely got around to enacting our own constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. Yet reading them, you can see the profound influence of the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then so many nations pay tribute to the USA in similar fashion.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven. It takes greater faith to believe that there is no God, contrary to the physical and internal evidence all around us. How do you believe everything started? Scripture clearly teaches that all die which is the direct result of rebellion against our creator.

[Christianity in crisis?]

I would really enjoy a chat about the visible church and the great amount of disunity found throughout the history of the church. The 21st century actually seems worst with much abuse of scripture interpretation, causing more and more divisions among Christians. Have you made your rounds through the various Christian circles? I believe the doctrine of sola scriptura has been abused, and don't believe the answer is the Catholic Church, nor a form of restoration theology.

Why do you privelege sola scriptura?

Who has abused scripture and how?

By what criteria would you discover or impose unity? Why is this a value to be sought?

Why not Catholic church or restoration theology?

To answer your question, yes, insofar as fundies haven't been muzzled and we all aren't yet progressive episcopalians. But that's just my opinion.

I love Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians too. Sola Scriptura is a good foundation if not abused. I think we all abuse scripture because we all know in part, and still struggle with sin on this side of glory. John 17 is a command for Christian unity. Our unity is based on being united to Christ. So, who's truly united to Christ? Only God knows who are His. The Catholic Church and restoration churches (Church of Christ, LDS) have their shortcoming. I do not consider the Mormon Church to be in the body of Christ. I keep unity within orthodoxy (historic creeds such as the Nicene Creed, or Apostles Creed). LOL... I do distance myself from fundies because God is not a Republican!!!! However, fundies ar misdirected brothers and sisters who have a tendency to focus on a moral gospel in comparison to the gospel. Heck, what is a tradititonal family when you consider the chosen ones in the OT. Abraham married his half sister and Sarah's slave, and Jacob married his cousin. Solomon had how many wives?

[Slopeshoulder]

I would really enjoy a chat about the visible church and the great amount of disunity found throughout the history of the church. The 21st century actually seems worst with much abuse of scripture interpretation, causing more and more divisions among Christians. Have you made your rounds through the various Christian circles? I believe the doctrine of sola scriptura has been abused, and don't believe the answer is the Catholic Church, nor a form of restoration theology.

Why do you privelege sola scriptura?

Who has abused scripture and how?

By what criteria would you discover or impose unity? Why is this a value to be sought?

Why not Catholic church or restoration theology?

To answer your question, yes, insofar as fundies haven't been muzzled and we all aren't yet progressive episcopalians. But that's just my opinion.

I love Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians too. Sola Scriptura is a good foundation if not abused. I think we all abuse scripture because we all know in part, and still struggle with sin on this side of glory. John 17 is a command for Christian unity. Our unity is based on being united to Christ. So, who's truly united to Christ? Only God knows who are His. The Catholic Church and restoration churches (Church of Christ, LDS) have their shortcoming. I do not consider the Mormon Church to be in the body of Christ. I keep unity within orthodoxy (historic creeds such as the Nicene Creed, or Apostles Creed). LOL... I do distance myself from fundies because God is not a Republican!!!! However, fundies ar misdirected brothers and sisters who have a tendency to focus on a moral gospel in comparison to the gospel. Heck, what is a tradititonal family when you consider the chosen ones in the OT. Abraham married his half sister and Sarah's slave, and Jacob married his cousin. Solomon had how many wives?

I associate your ideas with radical-orthodoxy. Are you an admirer of John Milbank? I must say I'm not. Or perhaps it's paleo-orthodoxy? Wikipedia has decent articles on them. I gather this is your perspective?

It seems that as the modern era had ended, and we now are working within a postmodern context, there are two broad options for Christianity (and any "belief" system).
One inclines toward more fluid, pluralistic, evolving, local, syncretistic, non-doctrinal, emerging, post-doctrinal and openly mystical forms. The other inclines more toward rigid, closed, self-validating, backward-looking, doctrinal, creedal grammatical and presuppositionalist forms.
Both are based on huge intellectual edifi and good intentions. Neither makes one a republican! Both are post-foundationalist. I favor the former option, and have zero a prioro attachment to inherited forms; in religious terms, I go with the spirit/flow/force/tao and consider enform-ment and settledness to be a form of idolatry and a boon to sectarian destructiveness. It appears you favor the latter. Your crisis is my creation (and vice versa?).

Do you favor a specifically protestant form of paleo- or radical orthodoxy? Many of them go catholic, so I'm curious what this might look like. Maybe a kind of neo-calvinism? Not sure it could have the pulling power to unite much, at least not without hundreds of years and a lotta luck.
Edit: actually, it seems to be the confessing movement. I say Yikes.

[McCulloch]

I think Christians and unbelievers both want a better world for all people. However, the difference is that Christians are looking outside themselves (God) to give them wisdom on how to make this a better world for all.

That is a matter of perspective. I think that the difference is that the Christians are looking at ancient documents alleged to be revelations from the god and their own imaginings alleged to be the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Unbelievers look to themselves for wisdom on how to achieve this shared desire.

Because that is all we have. The difference is that we admit it. Humanity must find the solutions to our problems, because no one else is going to do it for us.

The problem is that when we look to ourselves only, then we can potentially come up with six billion different opinions, leaving us in chaos.

Humans are a social animal. Our entire history is based on this one overriding attribute. We have figured out ways to work together, to bridge our differences and to coexist, even to cooperate. We must leverage this ability, reinforce it and use it to move forward.

I don't believe humans have evolved in several thousand years of what all humans struggle from within, pride, self-centeredness, unable to love our neighbors as ourselves on a regular basis. It's an internal brokeness which is a universal condition which can only be rectified by our creator.

I agree that we do have challenges to overcome. We have evolved to thrive in tribal groups so our natural inclinations are those which favor that societal structure. We have to be deliberate to extend our thinking to a larger or even global perspective. But I am not going to wait for or depend on some mythical spiritual creator to fix us. If he exists and he has the power to do so, then he should go ahead and do it. Or maybe he shouldn't have created such broken down wrecks in the first place.

Now, if you don't believe in a creator, you are left to yourself to change through your own ability.

Or to draw on the collective experience of our histories and societies. You make it sound like each one of us has to go it alone.

I don't think there is not enough evidence in the 21st century that mankind is changing. Do you leave your house unlocked at night? Do you leave your car key in the ignition and the car door unlocked? Are there parts in your city that you would not want to walk through late at night?

I'm not looking for a utopia. And I hear you about human failings. I just don't think that we're having a whole lot of success with the let's depend on God to fix things approach. Christians have been waiting for close to two thousand years for their messiah to return in the clouds and set things right.

IMO... it takes a giant leap of faith to be an atheist. On the next clear night, gaze at the stars and tell me that you can be certain that there is no God.

IMO it takes a giant leap of faith to be a theist. Visit a hospital.

[youtube][/youtube]

All Things Dull and Ugly

All things dull and ugly,
all creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
the Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
he made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
the Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
all pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
the Lord God made them all.

Amen.

How do you believe the known universe started?

I don't know. I believe that honestly admitted ignorance is the beginning of the search for truth. Humanity has been really good at making stuff up about origins, but the truth is, we don't ultimately know.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven.

We are very close in our understanding of faith. To me, faith is attributing a degree of certainty to a proposition that is not warranted by the available evidence.

It takes greater faith to believe that there is no God, contrary to the physical and internal evidence all around us.

What evidence would that be? There is no evidence of any spiritual beings, therefore we should look to a spiritual being as the ultimate source? The evidence of biology indicates that we are the result of a undirected process which we have labeled evolution, therefore we should conclude that there is a cosmic designer?

Scripture clearly teaches that all die which is the direct result of rebellion against our creator.

Biology clearly teaches that all die as a necessity of being living reproducing entities.

[Christianity in crisis?]

I would really enjoy a chat about the visible church and the great amount of disunity found throughout the history of the church. The 21st century actually seems worst with much abuse of scripture interpretation, causing more and more divisions among Christians. Have you made your rounds through the various Christian circles? I believe the doctrine of sola scriptura has been abused, and don't believe the answer is the Catholic Church, nor a form of restoration theology.

Why do you privelege sola scriptura?

Who has abused scripture and how?

By what criteria would you discover or impose unity? Why is this a value to be sought?

Why not Catholic church or restoration theology?

To answer your question, yes, insofar as fundies haven't been muzzled and we all aren't yet progressive episcopalians. But that's just my opinion.

I love Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians too. Sola Scriptura is a good foundation if not abused. I think we all abuse scripture because we all know in part, and still struggle with sin on this side of glory. John 17 is a command for Christian unity. Our unity is based on being united to Christ. So, who's truly united to Christ? Only God knows who are His. The Catholic Church and restoration churches (Church of Christ, LDS) have their shortcoming. I do not consider the Mormon Church to be in the body of Christ. I keep unity within orthodoxy (historic creeds such as the Nicene Creed, or Apostles Creed). LOL... I do distance myself from fundies because God is not a Republican!!!! However, fundies ar misdirected brothers and sisters who have a tendency to focus on a moral gospel in comparison to the gospel. Heck, what is a tradititonal family when you consider the chosen ones in the OT. Abraham married his half sister and Sarah's slave, and Jacob married his cousin. Solomon had how many wives?

I associate your ideas with radical-orthodoxy. Are you an admirer of John Milbank? I must say I'm not. Or perhaps it's paleo-orthodoxy? Wikipedia has decent articles on them. I gather this is your perspective?

It seems that as the modern era had ended, and we now are working within a postmodern context, there are two broad options for Christianity (and any "belief" system).
One inclines toward more fluid, pluralistic, evolving, local, syncretistic, non-doctrinal, emerging, post-doctrinal and openly mystical forms. The other inclines more toward rigid, closed, self-validating, backward-looking, doctrinal, creedal grammatical and presuppositionalist forms.
Both are based on huge intellectual edifi and good intentions. Neither makes one a republican! Both are post-foundationalist. I favor the former option, and have zero a prioro attachment to inherited forms; in religious terms, I go with the spirit/flow/force/tao and consider enform-ment and settledness to be a form of idolatry and a boon to sectarian destructiveness. It appears you favor the latter. Your crisis is my creation (and vice versa?).

Do you favor a specifically protestant form of paleo- or radical orthodoxy? Many of them go catholic, so I'm curious what this might look like. Maybe a kind of neo-calvinism? Not sure it could have the pulling power to unite much, at least not without hundreds of years and a lotta luck.
Edit: actually, it seems to be the confessing movement. I say Yikes.

In regards to theology, I am a staunch Calvinist and agree with the "Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals" and the "Cambridge Declaration". On the other hand, I am very ecumenical, and now embrace the ideas from ECT 1 and ECT 2 (Evangelicals and Catholics Together documents. and the Joint Declaration between Catholics and Lutherans on justification. Heck, JI Packard and Chuck Colson signed ECT 1. I do have a much greater appreciation of the Catholic Faith and Orthodox Faith especially listening to ex-Evangelicals who are now Catholics (Catholic Answers). I'm not familar with John Milbank. Should I read his books?

[Christianity in crisis?]

I think Christians and unbelievers both want a better world for all people. However, the difference is that Christians are looking outside themselves (God) to give them wisdom on how to make this a better world for all.

That is a matter of perspective. I think that the difference is that the Christians are looking at ancient documents alleged to be revelations from the god and their own imaginings alleged to be the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Unbelievers look to themselves for wisdom on how to achieve this shared desire.

Because that is all we have. The difference is that we admit it. Humanity must find the solutions to our problems, because no one else is going to do it for us.

The problem is that when we look to ourselves only, then we can potentially come up with six billion different opinions, leaving us in chaos.

Humans are a social animal. Our entire history is based on this one overriding attribute. We have figured out ways to work together, to bridge our differences and to coexist, even to cooperate. We must leverage this ability, reinforce it and use it to move forward.

I don't believe humans have evolved in several thousand years of what all humans struggle from within, pride, self-centeredness, unable to love our neighbors as ourselves on a regular basis. It's an internal brokeness which is a universal condition which can only be rectified by our creator.

I agree that we do have challenges to overcome. We have evolved to thrive in tribal groups so our natural inclinations are those which favor that societal structure. We have to be deliberate to extend our thinking to a larger or even global perspective. But I am not going to wait for or depend on some mythical spiritual creator to fix us. If he exists and he has the power to do so, then he should go ahead and do it. Or maybe he shouldn't have created such broken down wrecks in the first place.

Now, if you don't believe in a creator, you are left to yourself to change through your own ability.

Or to draw on the collective experience of our histories and societies. You make it sound like each one of us has to go it alone.

I don't think there is not enough evidence in the 21st century that mankind is changing. Do you leave your house unlocked at night? Do you leave your car key in the ignition and the car door unlocked? Are there parts in your city that you would not want to walk through late at night?

I'm not looking for a utopia. And I hear you about human failings. I just don't think that we're having a whole lot of success with the let's depend on God to fix things approach. Christians have been waiting for close to two thousand years for their messiah to return in the clouds and set things right.

IMO... it takes a giant leap of faith to be an atheist. On the next clear night, gaze at the stars and tell me that you can be certain that there is no God.

IMO it takes a giant leap of faith to be a theist. Visit a hospital.

[youtube][/youtube]

All Things Dull and Ugly

All things dull and ugly,
all creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
the Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
he made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
the Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
all pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
the Lord God made them all.

Amen.

How do you believe the known universe started?

I don't know. I believe that honestly admitted ignorance is the beginning of the search for truth. Humanity has been really good at making stuff up about origins, but the truth is, we don't ultimately know.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven.

We are very close in our understanding of faith. To me, faith is attributing a degree of certainty to a proposition that is not warranted by the available evidence.

It takes greater faith to believe that there is no God, contrary to the physical and internal evidence all around us.

What evidence would that be? There is no evidence of any spiritual beings, therefore we should look to a spiritual being as the ultimate source? The evidence of biology indicates that we are the result of a undirected process which we have labeled evolution, therefore we should conclude that there is a cosmic designer?

Scripture clearly teaches that all die which is the direct result of rebellion against our creator.

Biology clearly teaches that all die as a necessity of being living reproducing entities.

This is my belief which is driven by Scripture revelation. We are one humanity, united to the first man (Adam) who rebelled against God. Therefore, all humanity sinned in Adam and suffered the consequences of Adam's sin. Suffering, death, and inhumane actions against each other is the direct resut of our fallen nature. We are all born in this hopless conditon in enmity with God. But God became flesh to create a new humanity. So, in my view we only have two groups in all of humanity. Either you are united to the first Adam or the second Adam (Christ). What we were not able to do for ourselves (reconcile ourselves with our creator, and change our fallen sinful nature), God did for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

[McCulloch]

This is my belief which is driven by Scripture revelation.

Well, that kind of raises the issue of why you believe that the Christian scriptures are a revelation from the god.

We are one humanity, united to the first man (Adam) who rebelled against God.

If you read the story of Adam and Eve literally, you must admit that Adam was quite a dolt. Why the heck would anyone who walked with God rebel? How is it that someone created in the image of God would rebel?

Therefore, all humanity sinned in Adam and suffered the consequences of Adam's sin.

So you believe that acquired characteristics (for example Adam's sin) are inheritable? How does that work? Why would a just God design human life in such a way as to make us sinners because our forefather sinned? That does not seem like intelligent design to me. Does it to you?

Suffering, death, and inhumane actions against each other is the direct result of our fallen nature. We are all born in this hopeless condition in enmity with God.

Personally, I think that infants are cute and innocent. They are not in enmity with anyone.

But God became flesh to create a new humanity. So, in my view we only have two groups in all of humanity. Either you are united to the first Adam or the second Adam (Christ).

Except that the two groups appear to be completely identical.
"What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus."
These are the words of an upbeat Christian song. Stand back and think about it. What a gruesome horrific image! Why would a reasonably intelligent God create a universe where such blood sacrifice would be necessary or even allowed?