Liberal churches report surge in participation in reaction to Trump presidency (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:41:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Liberal churches report surge in participation in reaction to Trump presidency (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Liberal churches report surge in participation in reaction to Trump presidency  (Read 2296 times)
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


« on: April 19, 2017, 04:55:32 PM »
« edited: April 19, 2017, 05:03:18 PM by modern maverick »

Most mainline Protestant churches are nothing more than social clubs where people throw around vaguely Christian language now and then to feel good about themselves and virtue signal. Some are even borderline agnostic are just places where normal people who are freaked out by hand waving and "fire and brimstone" preaching go to share their more private, reserved faiths in God and Jesus with each other ... they also occasionally use common sense to see some Biblical stories as allegory and don't care if the psychos down the street at the evangelical "church" think they're less Christian for this basic level of intelligence and non-cultish attitudes.

Always rich when these much newer evangelical religions trash Christian faiths that have been around for so much longer because they're not weird enough.
Jesus told us that we are the light of the world. Even if the average mainline church's attendants truly believed in God as more than simply a metaphysical concept, there is no point in lighting a lamp and putting it under a bowl, which is exactly what restricting your faith to the four walls of the church is. We have to shine our light at darkness, which is in the real world outside the church. It is a good thing to be overtly religious and project our beliefs into every facet of our lives.

I hate to go full moderate hero, especially in a thread as PROMISING as this one, but I think both of you make good points--there's nothing wrong with having a more reserved, or even skittish and uncertain, faith, but forthrightness and willingness to proclaim the Gospel do need to be treated as normative and as the ideal to strive for.

I definitely don't think doubling down on warmed-over Rauschenbusch is quite the way to square that circle, though, especially since, ideally, social consciousness shouldn't be treated as in any way incompatible with an equal emphasis on personal holiness, yet for some reason often is (and, yes, both sides do it).

Also, isn't Santander ACNA or something along those lines? Continuing Anglican denominations are new as denominations and have formed in response to new-ish theological debates, but I don't think it's really fair to lump their doctrine or practice in with flashy, ahistorical forms of Evangelicalism.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2017, 11:11:10 AM »

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2017, 11:32:06 AM »

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarifying. There are plenty of people who do use this talking point about translation from one language to another and it annoys me to no end. My bad.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2017, 12:34:02 PM »

2) have been morphed by centuries of translation to the point that we don't know what actually happened,

With respect, I don't really understand the point of this argument because we have numerous copies of the Bible in the original languages (far more than for other religious corpi such as the Mahayana Buddhist sutras, which were originally written in Sanskrit but are mostly extant in Chinese), unless the point is that there might be some uncertainty because many of the characters in the New Testament would have been speaking Aramaic rather than Greek.

I didn't mean translation from one language to another so much as the story changing over time.  Additionally, I think some of the allegory might have made more sense to someone in the BC years than someone in 2017 (obviously) and so it should be interpreted that way.

Thanks for clarifying. There are plenty of people who do use this talking point about translation from one language to another and it annoys me to no end. My bad.

No problem! Smiley  Interesting topic, for sure, I just don't hold it to the same logical rigor that we would discussing non-religious history.  That's not to say the Bible isn't a largely historical text, as I believe it is, but I think that applying some imagination to the more fantastic elements of Scripture - based on one's conception of God and His nature, based on scientific discoveries, personal experiences, etc. - is perfectly normal and doesn't fundamentally dillute one's religiosity.

I'd agree with that to an extent, but I said in my AMA a little while ago that I'd reject any demythologization that diminishes the power of God by presupposing against the miraculous, and I stand by that. I don't think that's the only possible Christian position (although once one gets to the point of outright denying the Incarnation and Resurrection I'd say one is outside the bounds of Christianity) but it's one that I'm personally fairly insistent about.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.