Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism. You donāt have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian. You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and āaccept Jesus into your heartā. Thatās it.
In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isnāt a requirement (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!). As Iām sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, youāre all good!
Ah Christianityā¦the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you. It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.
Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism.
No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someoneās word to go by.
You donāt have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian.
True, but a lack of love and good works proves that the repentance was a sham. āA good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.ā Seasons of rebellion and momentary mistakes happen, but if a personās life is marked by constant, unrestrained evil, theyāre showing a lack of fruit that probably means they arenāt repentant.
You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and āaccept Jesus into your heartā. Thatās it.
Yeah, thatās not Christianity. Not historically speaking, at least. Itās a shockingly new development and almost entirely centered on American individualism, and Christians from longer ago than the 1700s wouldnāt recognize any of that. Scripturally and historically, Christianity requires belief and repentance; which look, superficially and in the moment, like admitting youāre a sinner and accepting Jesus into your heart, but prove themselves to be something different over time.
In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isnāt a requirement
Actually, it is. The writer of Hebrews says (13:12) equates sanctification with salvation. Historically, believing that one can happen without the other is just a bizarre idea because they were considered synonymous.
(obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!).
Indeed, they arenāt repentant, and are thus not Christians.
As Iām sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, youāre all good!
Again, historically and theologically, this is unrecognizable as Christianity.
Ah Christianityā¦the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you.
In America, at least. But the Church has, throughout the ages, excommunicated people for being horrible and āshowing their faith to be a shipwreck.ā We hear about unrepentant, non-Christian people (particularly among the puritans) who used excommunication as a weapon against those they didnāt like (particularly women), but it has been used correctly throughout history as well; to get the wolves away from the sheep.
It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.
Individualism is popular now, to our great shame, but a community of faith urging one another toward sanctification is in the Bible, in the early church, and in the continuing line of Christianity throughout history.
Incidentally, the ādrive-thruā analogy is pretty close to what Luther was āprotestingā against in the first place. I think thereās another Reformation coming, and this one is going to be about the people who value and respect and love breaking away from the people who donāt.
No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someoneās word to go by.
This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. So, on this mortal plane you only have someoneās word. I, therefore, return to my point that anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows. I though the latter clarification was fairly obvious since Iām presumably talking to another human.
Indeed, they arenāt repentant, and are thus not Christians.
(Quote referring to rapey priests)
See, now thereās the rub. How do you know the priests arenāt repentant? Even if theyāve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesnāt believe you anymore. The flesh is weak, but Jesus is forgiving.
The way religious communities have dealt with this epistemological problem of not being able to peer into someoneās heart is by distinguishing between what is acceptable in the community vs. what may be acceptable to God. The community judged their body and left God to judge their soul. Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death. Hate the sin, not the sinner. The sinnerās soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.
I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be. But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God, while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a ārealā Christian.
Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again. Except this time we canāt point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the ārealā Christians!
This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. [ā¦] anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows.
You know based upon how they act. If a person says theyāre an avid hiker, but after observing them for a decade you never see them hiking, you know their statement was false. If you ask them after that decade and they still profess that theyāre an avid hiker, you know theyāre lying. This is what Jesus meant by ātheyāll know youāre my disciples if you love one another.ā
How do you know the priests arenāt repentant? Even if theyāve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus.
Because true repentance brings with it a change in behavior. āSlipping upā once or twice with something minor (edit: oh geez, thatāsā¦a very poor choice of words. How about āsomething inconsequentialā) is one thing. But big abuses, and patterns of abuse over decades, and efforts to hide or dismiss it once it comes to light shows a lack of repentance. This is what Jesus meant by āA good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.ā Heās speaking there specifically about false teachers seeking to harm others.
Certainly, they could ask for and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. But by continuing in a pattern of sinful behavior, they prove that they have not, even if they claim to have done so.
The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesnāt believe you anymore.
No, but Jesus does know the human heart, and will not be fooled by people trying to exploit apparent loopholes to look holy without actually pursuing sanctification. āYou clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence,ā Jesus said. Or John the Baptist, who told the same corrupt religious leaders to ābear fruit in keeping with repentance.ā So the Bible doesnāt give a limit because thereās a judge on the matter with perfect understanding.
Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. [ā¦] The sinnerās soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.
Sure, but if they believe God is that easily fooled by someone who knowingly waits until the last possible instant to āconvertā so that they can sin during their lives, why would they believe even then? Weāre not talking about some impersonal magic rules or an easily-befuddled genie, weāre talking about an intimate and infinite God who created the universe and knows your heart better than you do; and if youāre just checking the box at the end of your life in hopes of avoiding the flames, thereās no way itās true repentance.
Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death.
Yeah, inquisition is a terrible, dark, vile, truly despicable chapter in the churchās history. And while I think there may have been a few who were hoodwinked into believing that, the people who were teaching it had to have known that it was bunk.
I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be.
I mean, Iām just reading the founding document, through the lens of the majority of Christians over the course of history and around the world. What itās become in America in the past century or so flies in the face of what it has always been, and what it was intended to be.
But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God,
I donāt say that. The āpersonal relationshipā thing is just not in the Bible. Thatās a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, (edit: reintroduced from an ancient heresy called gnosticism) and nobody wouldāve recognized that faith before American evangelicals invented(edit: rediscovered) it. Christianity was always intended to beāand has historically beenāpracticed in community, with people in one anotherās lives so that they can see sin in one another and exhort one another toward sanctification.
while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a ārealā Christian.
Once again, I am not making that judgment. The unrepentant person does not bear fruit in keeping with repentance, and thus it becomes obvious over time that they have not repented.
And to be clear here: I am not talking about a teenage girl who gets pregnant before sheās married. Iām talking about Fortune 500 CEOs who gleefully fleece their customers and their employees from Monday through Saturday, then show up at church on Sunday in some pretense of piety. Iām talking about police officers who worship next to Black men on Sunday morning and then have them in a chokehold on the curb on Friday night. Iām talking about politicians who claim that theyāve never needed to repent in their lives and that their favorite book of the Bible is āTwo Corinthians,ā and who tear-gas people protesting the murder of Image-Bearers so that they can have a photo op with a Bible thatās never been opened.
Theyāre all bearing unrepentant fruit, and I think itās important to recognize them as such.
Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again.
Indeed. I donāt remember if youāre the one I mentioned this to, but I think thereās another Reformation coming. I hope so, at least.
Except this time we canāt point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the ārealā Christians!
Yes, agreed. The Second Reformation is going to be a long road to travel indeed. If there is any comfort, it is that there are many more Luthers this time. (And hopefully theyāre less antisemitic.)
Itās not exactly a new thing, read up on Christian Gnosticism, that goes back to when what we know as the Bible was being constructed. Largely I agree with your points though. Iād write more but Iām on break at work right now, sorry.
Ah! Fair point about gnosticism, though I think most Christians throughout history would consider that a heresy. But youāre right, that does precede American individualistic Jesus-fandom by many centuries. Good point.
I donāt say that. The āpersonal relationshipā thing is just not in the Bible. Thatās a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, and nobody wouldāve recognized that faith before American evangelicals invented it. Christianity was always intended to beāand has historically beenāpracticed in community, with people in one anotherās lives so that they can see and exhort one another toward sanctification.
Okay, I didnāt realize that was a more recent phenomenon. I did a quick lookup and it seems that this āpersonal relationshipā thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the āaccept Jesus into your heartā thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.
Iām not sure if that Second Reformation you speak of will ever happen. Christianity has lost almost all credibility. Something less fraught with horrible historical baggage will have to take its place. Christianity is pre-scientific. Luther and the Protestants were able to shed their brand of Christianity of its Roman imperial trappings, which was due, but half of Christians are still Catholic. But even Luther is pre-scientific. Educated people just arenāt going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy. I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness. And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said heās coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? Itās too much. We know too much now to read the Bible as though it is literally true. Weāve moved on. Something more believable will have to take its place.
Also, Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. Besides the church scandals, the politicization of Christianity, including the attacks on womenās rights, homosexuality, the book banning, the stacking of SCOTUS with Christian zealots who only seem to want to restrict rights, and the election of a Christian Nationalist to the Speaker role are not putting Christianity in a good light. If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage. Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.
Many of the poor countries of the global South are still pretty Christian, but their version of Christianity is very, very conservative. And by āconservativeā, I mean the āletās burn all the gaysā type of conservative. Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.
Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated. If all the āreasonableā people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.
[ā¦] it seems that this āpersonal relationshipā thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the āaccept Jesus into your heartā thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.
Yeah, for sure. Someone else pointed out that itās also a repackaging of an ancient and widely-discredited heresy called Gnosticism, so perhaps ārecentā is an overstatement; but for the vast majority of Christian history, it has not been considered orthodox.
Christianity has lost almost all credibility.
I donāt disagree, though I might clarify that Christianity has lost almost all credibility in the West due to the association with people who claim the name but have nothing to do with its tenets.
Educated people just arenāt going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy.
I donāt think that necessarily matches up with the data. Globally, Christians have on average the same amount or more schooling than non-Christians. The association of anti-intellectualism with Christians is also a recent American phenomenon, the Dark Ages excepted.
I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? [ā¦] And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said heās coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? Itās too much.
Yeah, I agree, itās unusual. But if it was completely explainable, if it matched all of our expectations and experiences, it wouldnāt be divine. A transcendent God would have to do things and know things we donāt expect or understand, or we would be his equal.
It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness.
I have to be honest, if I were trying to imagine and craft a religion for myself, it would be a lot heavier on me always getting what I want and a lot lower on the self-sacrifice. (/s, but only a little bit)
Honestly, and I legitimately just realized this, it would look a lot more like the false faith that people like Johnson believe in.
Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. [ā¦very fair criticismā¦] If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage.
Yep. They are. For those of us who try not to be in that camp, itās very frustrating. But I think they are honestly the loud minority.
Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.
This has been oft-prophesied. I will say that, if this anti-science right-wing nonsense masquerading as Christianity dies, what small remnant of Christians might continue on will be much healthier with their absence.
Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.
I would hope people are able to see the difference between religion and extremism. Not that extremists make that easy.
Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated.
In any occasion where religion is suppressed or banned, it flourishes underground. This is well-attested historically, not merely for Christians; and can be seen even today in places like China.
If all the āreasonableā people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.
Perhaps. I think the premise is unfounded, but in any case it doesnāt change my plan. All the bad feelings and negative thoughts about Christianity are meaningless if itās true, and I believe it is; so Iāll just keep on trying to be as loving and helpful as I can.
Incorrect. Anyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian, at least in Protestantism. You donāt have to do good works or anything of the kind to be a Christian. You just have to admit that you are a sinner, profess to regret those sins, and āaccept Jesus into your heartā. Thatās it.
In theory, accepting Jesus into your heart is supposed to improve your behavior, but it isnāt a requirement (obviously, with all of those rapey priests!!). As Iām sure you know, you can be the worst kind of sinner all of your life, but as long as you accept Jesus and confess your sins to Him before you die, youāre all good!
Ah Christianityā¦the ultimate get-out-of-hell-free card, and no one can gain-say you. It is just between you and your Saviour. It is just so darn convenient, like a drive-thru. No wonder it is so popular.
No. Anyone who believes in and follows Jesus is Christian; we just usually only have someoneās word to go by.
True, but a lack of love and good works proves that the repentance was a sham. āA good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.ā Seasons of rebellion and momentary mistakes happen, but if a personās life is marked by constant, unrestrained evil, theyāre showing a lack of fruit that probably means they arenāt repentant.
Yeah, thatās not Christianity. Not historically speaking, at least. Itās a shockingly new development and almost entirely centered on American individualism, and Christians from longer ago than the 1700s wouldnāt recognize any of that. Scripturally and historically, Christianity requires belief and repentance; which look, superficially and in the moment, like admitting youāre a sinner and accepting Jesus into your heart, but prove themselves to be something different over time.
Actually, it is. The writer of Hebrews says (13:12) equates sanctification with salvation. Historically, believing that one can happen without the other is just a bizarre idea because they were considered synonymous.
Indeed, they arenāt repentant, and are thus not Christians.
Again, historically and theologically, this is unrecognizable as Christianity.
In America, at least. But the Church has, throughout the ages, excommunicated people for being horrible and āshowing their faith to be a shipwreck.ā We hear about unrepentant, non-Christian people (particularly among the puritans) who used excommunication as a weapon against those they didnāt like (particularly women), but it has been used correctly throughout history as well; to get the wolves away from the sheep.
Individualism is popular now, to our great shame, but a community of faith urging one another toward sanctification is in the Bible, in the early church, and in the continuing line of Christianity throughout history.
Incidentally, the ādrive-thruā analogy is pretty close to what Luther was āprotestingā against in the first place. I think thereās another Reformation coming, and this one is going to be about the people who value and respect and love breaking away from the people who donāt.
This a pointless distinction. You have no knowledge of the true nature of the relationship between a person and their Savior. So, on this mortal plane you only have someoneās word. I, therefore, return to my point that anyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian, as far as any mortal being knows. I though the latter clarification was fairly obvious since Iām presumably talking to another human.
See, now thereās the rub. How do you know the priests arenāt repentant? Even if theyāve committed hundreds rapes, they may still ask and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. The Bible does not define how many times you can commit the same sin and ask for forgiveness before Jesus doesnāt believe you anymore. The flesh is weak, but Jesus is forgiving.
The way religious communities have dealt with this epistemological problem of not being able to peer into someoneās heart is by distinguishing between what is acceptable in the community vs. what may be acceptable to God. The community judged their body and left God to judge their soul. Death-bed conversions were and are absolutely acceptable in Christianity and always have been. Indeed, torturing someone until they confess was common practice back in the day, partly because they believed in truth through duress, but also because it was a chance for a Christian to rescue his soul before death. Hate the sin, not the sinner. The sinnerās soul can always be saved right up to their last breath.
I think your grasp of what Christianity actually is may be contaminated by what you want it to be. But even what you want it to be contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is not logically consistent to say that Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God, while at the same time taking it upon yourself to judge who is a ārealā Christian.
Luther tried that when the Catholic Church abused its authority and here we are again. Except this time we canāt point to a single authoritarian Catholic Church, but have to deal with a massive de-centralized super-community of corrupt churches. Luther wounded the big Dragon, but replaced it with a Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each one claiming to be the ārealā Christians!
You know based upon how they act. If a person says theyāre an avid hiker, but after observing them for a decade you never see them hiking, you know their statement was false. If you ask them after that decade and they still profess that theyāre an avid hiker, you know theyāre lying. This is what Jesus meant by ātheyāll know youāre my disciples if you love one another.ā
Because true repentance brings with it a change in behavior. āSlipping upā once or twice with something
minor(edit: oh geez, thatāsā¦a very poor choice of words. How about āsomething inconsequentialā) is one thing. But big abuses, and patterns of abuse over decades, and efforts to hide or dismiss it once it comes to light shows a lack of repentance. This is what Jesus meant by āA good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.ā Heās speaking there specifically about false teachers seeking to harm others.Certainly, they could ask for and receive the forgiveness of Jesus. But by continuing in a pattern of sinful behavior, they prove that they have not, even if they claim to have done so.
No, but Jesus does know the human heart, and will not be fooled by people trying to exploit apparent loopholes to look holy without actually pursuing sanctification. āYou clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence,ā Jesus said. Or John the Baptist, who told the same corrupt religious leaders to ābear fruit in keeping with repentance.ā So the Bible doesnāt give a limit because thereās a judge on the matter with perfect understanding.
Sure, but if they believe God is that easily fooled by someone who knowingly waits until the last possible instant to āconvertā so that they can sin during their lives, why would they believe even then? Weāre not talking about some impersonal magic rules or an easily-befuddled genie, weāre talking about an intimate and infinite God who created the universe and knows your heart better than you do; and if youāre just checking the box at the end of your life in hopes of avoiding the flames, thereās no way itās true repentance.
Yeah, inquisition is a terrible, dark, vile, truly despicable chapter in the churchās history. And while I think there may have been a few who were hoodwinked into believing that, the people who were teaching it had to have known that it was bunk.
I mean, Iām just reading the founding document, through the lens of the majority of Christians over the course of history and around the world. What itās become in America in the past century or so flies in the face of what it has always been, and what it was intended to be.
I donāt say that. The āpersonal relationshipā thing is just not in the Bible. Thatās a recent addition to satisfy the independent American, (edit: reintroduced from an ancient heresy called gnosticism) and nobody wouldāve recognized that faith before American evangelicals
invented(edit: rediscovered) it. Christianity was always intended to beāand has historically beenāpracticed in community, with people in one anotherās lives so that they can see sin in one another and exhort one another toward sanctification.Once again, I am not making that judgment. The unrepentant person does not bear fruit in keeping with repentance, and thus it becomes obvious over time that they have not repented.
And to be clear here: I am not talking about a teenage girl who gets pregnant before sheās married. Iām talking about Fortune 500 CEOs who gleefully fleece their customers and their employees from Monday through Saturday, then show up at church on Sunday in some pretense of piety. Iām talking about police officers who worship next to Black men on Sunday morning and then have them in a chokehold on the curb on Friday night. Iām talking about politicians who claim that theyāve never needed to repent in their lives and that their favorite book of the Bible is āTwo Corinthians,ā and who tear-gas people protesting the murder of Image-Bearers so that they can have a photo op with a Bible thatās never been opened.
Theyāre all bearing unrepentant fruit, and I think itās important to recognize them as such.
Indeed. I donāt remember if youāre the one I mentioned this to, but I think thereās another Reformation coming. I hope so, at least.
Yes, agreed. The Second Reformation is going to be a long road to travel indeed. If there is any comfort, it is that there are many more Luthers this time. (And hopefully theyāre less antisemitic.)
Re: the personal relationship with God thing
Itās not exactly a new thing, read up on Christian Gnosticism, that goes back to when what we know as the Bible was being constructed. Largely I agree with your points though. Iād write more but Iām on break at work right now, sorry.
Ah! Fair point about gnosticism, though I think most Christians throughout history would consider that a heresy. But youāre right, that does precede American individualistic Jesus-fandom by many centuries. Good point.
Okay, I didnāt realize that was a more recent phenomenon. I did a quick lookup and it seems that this āpersonal relationshipā thing started during the Enlightenment. And, as you say, some people argue that the āaccept Jesus into your heartā thing really got going with American evangelical grifter-preachers like Billy Graham. I will read some more. Thanks for the tip.
Iām not sure if that Second Reformation you speak of will ever happen. Christianity has lost almost all credibility. Something less fraught with horrible historical baggage will have to take its place. Christianity is pre-scientific. Luther and the Protestants were able to shed their brand of Christianity of its Roman imperial trappings, which was due, but half of Christians are still Catholic. But even Luther is pre-scientific. Educated people just arenāt going to go back to believing in some invisible sky daddy. I mean, come on, an all-powerful, invisible, father figure who delivers justice to the oppressed (but only in the NEXT life) and who loves you no matter what? It is too obviously a wishful construct of childish human consciousness. And some Middle Eastern dude whose death saved all of humanity and who said heās coming back any time now, but that was 2000 years ago? Itās too much. We know too much now to read the Bible as though it is literally true. Weāve moved on. Something more believable will have to take its place.
Also, Protestantism is currently associated with American evangelical right wing nutters. Besides the church scandals, the politicization of Christianity, including the attacks on womenās rights, homosexuality, the book banning, the stacking of SCOTUS with Christian zealots who only seem to want to restrict rights, and the election of a Christian Nationalist to the Speaker role are not putting Christianity in a good light. If anything, the crazy moralistic and hypocritical side of Christianity seems to be taking centre stage. Western populations outside of the US are rejecting Christianity in droves and that rejection is particularly pronounced among young people. If Trump and the Christian anti-science right-wingers take office again, it might well be the final nail in the coffin for religion in most of the West.
Many of the poor countries of the global South are still pretty Christian, but their version of Christianity is very, very conservative. And by āconservativeā, I mean the āletās burn all the gaysā type of conservative. Extremist Muslims and Jews massacring each other in the Middle East, and Modi with his Hindu Nationalism, just make the societal mood toward religion worse, leading many to believe that ALL religion is inherently harmful.
Honestly, rather than the Second Reformation you speak of, I think we are more likely see further bans on religious expression in public life, and possibly some form of state protection for children to prevent them from being religiously indoctrinated. If all the āreasonableā people leave religion behind, only the extremists will be left, which will further convince the population that religion is harmful. It seems like Christianity has entered that downward spiral.
Yeah, for sure. Someone else pointed out that itās also a repackaging of an ancient and widely-discredited heresy called Gnosticism, so perhaps ārecentā is an overstatement; but for the vast majority of Christian history, it has not been considered orthodox.
I donāt disagree, though I might clarify that Christianity has lost almost all credibility in the West due to the association with people who claim the name but have nothing to do with its tenets.
I donāt think that necessarily matches up with the data. Globally, Christians have on average the same amount or more schooling than non-Christians. The association of anti-intellectualism with Christians is also a recent American phenomenon, the Dark Ages excepted.
Yeah, I agree, itās unusual. But if it was completely explainable, if it matched all of our expectations and experiences, it wouldnāt be divine. A transcendent God would have to do things and know things we donāt expect or understand, or we would be his equal.
I have to be honest, if I were trying to imagine and craft a religion for myself, it would be a lot heavier on me always getting what I want and a lot lower on the self-sacrifice. (/s, but only a little bit)
Honestly, and I legitimately just realized this, it would look a lot more like the false faith that people like Johnson believe in.
Yep. They are. For those of us who try not to be in that camp, itās very frustrating. But I think they are honestly the loud minority.
This has been oft-prophesied. I will say that, if this anti-science right-wing nonsense masquerading as Christianity dies, what small remnant of Christians might continue on will be much healthier with their absence.
I would hope people are able to see the difference between religion and extremism. Not that extremists make that easy.
In any occasion where religion is suppressed or banned, it flourishes underground. This is well-attested historically, not merely for Christians; and can be seen even today in places like China.
Perhaps. I think the premise is unfounded, but in any case it doesnāt change my plan. All the bad feelings and negative thoughts about Christianity are meaningless if itās true, and I believe it is; so Iāll just keep on trying to be as loving and helpful as I can.
Well, you are succeeding at being a decent person to talk to, even if I am an atheist. All the best to you. :)
Thank you! I appreciated our discussion greatly, and wish you the best as well. Have a good one!