no writer of any book in the bible had any trouble explaining who was and wasn't in god's favor and by "not in god's favor" i don't mean god was simply disappointed. it's pretty clear what are and aren't hallmarks of christianity and i know that and i think that's pretty clear an i'm not even a part of that religion. that almost no christian is willing to stand up for his or her own religion, and explain that others who appropriate the christian religion are doing so falsely and heretically, is why christianity is dying in america. it's no different than anyone in any religion or group who won't police its own. it's why we're disgusted by the silence of police about rogue cops. when you refuse to condemn the rogue or heretical behavior among those in your cohort, your silence makes you complicit in the failure of your cohort's mission.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I agreed that Luther made this statement. Yet, remember that Luther was reforming/re-thinking A LOT of stuff on the fly. This was an early declaration by him, which he later reconciled and thus reversed his "epistle of straw" claim. All this I stated in Post #71.


There is no inconsistency. They are addressing two different aspects.


There is no inconsistency; there is no mistake. They are addressing two different aspects. We can talk more about this if it's an issue for you. It's not overly complicated, but it's textually intensive.


I understand your focus on this. Thus, because it upsets you, you think Christians should be hyper focused about it. I read some about it. But, from a Christian standpoint, it's one of a myriad of non-believers. Maybe, Sphere who is hyper-focused on Mormons (Sphere, I'm merely putting a strawman; I'm not actually making this claim) thinks that Christians should focus more on Mormons. Someone else thinks Christians should focus more on atheists, etc. etc. At my church we don't spend a lot of time on worrying about Christian Nationalists or the Prosperity Gospel. We have ministries for adoption, the unborn, women trafficking, ministries in foreign countries, etc. We study a lot what we believe. I like politics. I read the WSJ everyday. But, frankly, I can't find many people at my church who like to talk about that stuff.


OK, you want to talk about James. James was 100%. Paul was 100%. There is no conflict. Read James 2:14-26. Note how James uses "show" and "someone will say". Read Romans 4: 1-14. James's concern is the proof/evidence of one's justification. Paul is concerned about the fact of justification. Two distinct aspects. They are not in conflict. Your expression here about the church is a good example of this. You hear people claim they are justified. "Great", you say, "show me. It's easy to say you are justified. But, I [slowman] am not God; I can only judge whether you're justified by your works." Of course, Slowman's view of the evidence doesn't make actually one bit of difference (one way or the other) of the actual fact of justification. It is God who justifies. And, God justifies based on faith.

maybe your church should. christian nationalists have been allowed to define christianity and only you know if your church was complicit. because of this christianity is dying because it has no defender. jesus has no defender. jesus has no advocate. i would say that same to a mosque that stood silent after october 7th. i say the same about police departments and unions who are silent every time a cop kills an innocent person. i say it about the cycling community when one of us acts like a dope on the road and gets caught doing so.

great that your church is feeding the hungry. and i mean that. but so are the muslims.

if your pastor is like almost all pastors he isn't going to say spit, to his congregation or to the world, because he'll lose his job and when that happens pastors are just like politicians in washington: do or say anything to keep the job. just, in this case, we shouldn't pretend that he's a christian in any real sense. he's a pastor drawing a paycheck. he's a guy with a career in religion. but maybe your pastor is different and i would absolutely love it if that is the case.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

There are quack doctors and a whole industry of questionable medicine and science out there precisely because people filter through beliefs and concepts to find doctors who speak to them. It's how you get questionable homeopathic or "natural" treatments, and questionable surgeries, and questionable psychological treatments. And it's how we get huge variance on treatment for kids with gender issues, for example, where personal ideological and political beliefs play a big role. Maybe objective truth is out there, but the person has to want to look for it, and has to be able to understand it, and has to be able to find the right people who can provide good advice. Similarly, in religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism specifically), there exists centuries of scholarship and tones of guidance from reputable sources on the core teachings.

Figuring out that Bill from the corner hardware store who started a cult and demands sexual favors from his stable of underage wives isn't actually aligned with scripture really isn't harder than figuring out that your doctor is a quack. And there doesn't need to be a specific line from scripture to tell you that explicitly.

I don't think science and medicine is quite so different, in this regard, as you might want to think.


I've obviously missed a lot of the thread, and I don't have the energy or desire to go back through all of what TriFloyd has said, and how Dan has responded.

I do want to reinforce my original point, which is that religion is similar to many other areas of life in this regard.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I'm not sure what you want from me. Sphere asked a question about false religions. I have responded with protections against that. I assumed that everyone understood that false religions (in whatever form they take) are subject to the same consequence. Obviously, you are hyper-focused on Christian nationalists. and you want me to shout from the rooftops that Christian nationalists are damned to eternal lake of fire. This is true of all false religions. (Does this statement satisfy you.) I'm not like you. As a Christian, I don't have it out for any particular false religion because, to me, they all suffer from the same ailment. They all need Jesus because he's the only one who can save. You, however, are hyper-focused on one particular false religion. Fine. I don't mind talking that.


I am using "false religion" and "not Christian" synonymously. Are you the only one in this forum who didn't understand that? It would be weird if Sphere (who asked a few questions about Mormons) said I wasn't harsh enough on Mormons by merely claiming their religion false and not expressly shouting that Mormons are all damned to hell and will drink of the cup of the full wrath of God.



OK, you have a burn against certain Christian Nationalists or Prosperity Gospel people. I share that concern. But, Christians don't normally go around damning people to hell. Generally, we say these things/beliefs are true/not true. It's true that this is very important to being saved. Still, in the Bible, it is God who often damns people to hell (just like you stated). Further, God often uses his own people to execute that judgment on other people (e.g., the Israelites on the Jebusites, Perusites, Canaanites, etc.). You might even be surprised that God used other nations to execute God's judgment on Israel (e.g, the Assyrians). But, God warns us that it is God who does this; not us. I don't have any window to the souls of any particular Mormon, Christian nationalist, etc. Thus, I generally am quite hesitant to express damnation to people. I'm quite willing to express my disagreement to a system of beliefs.

Here's what puts your "evangelical" Christian in a particularly hard spot. To be saved, it's very simple, you must believe in the Gospel. In some sense, all the other stuff is extraneous. Yes, there is the "show me" aspect. Sure, your "faith" must be true faith. The group of "evangelicals" (despite all the other stuff that you are pointing out, which I don't like) are part of the simple message that is the Gospel. In fact, the word "Gospel" or "Good news" is merely a transliteration of the Greek word "euangalion". It's trickier that your un-nuanced view allows.

What exactly is the evangelical church? It's a changing term, especially here in America where Trump and materialism are having a sad and corrupt impact on. Yet, in a very real sense, I might be included in that group. I can consider myself evangelical insofar as I believe that the Gospel saves people. Yet, Slowman, if you came to my church, you would in no way associate it with your view of any of those terms. You would rant and rave about politics this and that (because that's what you like to talk about), and we would listen out of courtesy, but not have any real interest in the conversation. We just don't talk about it that much, and I can't recall ever talking about it during a worship service or Sunday school or Bible study. You might find someone to talk about the trouble of the church and the merits/non-merits of Christian nationalism or the Prosperity Gospel. But, only as a system of belief, and what sinful desires cause us to be attracted to that system, not about the political aspects.

Great question. I would use God's word. I would certain accepted Creeds and Confessions (e.g., the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confession of Faith, etc.). The nitty/gritty of this determination would be quite messy, and the closer we get, then I would be very hesitant to make the claim. Thus, it's easier with the Mormon Church who does not profess the Trinity. It's harder the closer we get to agreeing to certain Creeds and Confessions. This is the issue Slowman is experiencing with great frustration. He wants me to claim that a broad swath of people who believe in the Trinity, who would profess to the Apostles Creed, etc. is not a true church. I'm just not willing to do that. I can identify certain aspects of their system (e.g., the linking of prosperity necessarily to one's faith, or the idea that God seems to want Christian to be successful in the political sphere) are misguided. Sure, God can (and does) do this. My abilities are far more inferior than God's.

I'm happy to entertain your particular examples if you offer them. Beyond that, here are my comments.
1) Every author of any book in the Bible was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). That is not true of anyone here today. Certainly not me.
2) God often warns Christians not to do the thing that you're asking.

Mt. 5:22c - "... and who says, "you fool!" will be liable to the hell of fire."

3) Two examples of critiques from Paul. Galatians and Corinthians. Both churches had significant issues. In Galatians, Paul criticizes their system of faith; not their practice. Insofar as they had this bad system of belief, Paul condemned them to hell ("Let them be anathema"). As far as I can tell, you have not critiqued any system of faith/doctrine; only what they do insofar as you don't like how they are confusing their politics and their church. I agree. But, I don't know that this condemns them to eternal damnation. You readily call them "Evangelical", which assumes that their system of faith is true to the Gospel, Apostles Creed, etc. In Corinthians (both books), Paul criticized their practice (e.g., speaking in tongues, taking the Lord's Supper, etc.). He did not condemn them to hell.
4) Book of Revelation - In Rev. 4/5, seven churches are identified. Harsh critiques. Harsh penalties. I have no ability to write an inspired letter.


I have critiqued this system so many times in this thread. You just seem very focus that my critique to include damning them to eternal lake of fire. That you conflate "not condemning them" with not "stand up for" is not reasonable.


Your claim eats itself. On the one hand, you say that these Evangelical Church members are are not Christians. In that sense, you're saying that Christians are few. On the other hand, implicit in your critique of new and growing Evangelical church, is that the church was much smaller (i.e., few), albeit true Christians, before this apparent growth. In each case, Christians are few. This, you say, is Christianity dying in America.


No. This is a misapplication of the concept. I have offered lots of critique of the modern Evangelical Church. I have not condemned them to hell. Taking your metaphor, I have no ability to kick people out of the police force. I have no ability to condemn them to hell. I can only critique their behavior and their belief system. I have done that.

i am glad you brought up matthew 5:22. that does not mean what you think it does. it specifically condemns sneering. calling someone worthless. when you shout huzzahs to tucker carlson that's it. that's what matthew 5:22 is talking about. it specifically condemns the behavior evangelicals engage in now. rather than appealing to the unredeemed evangelicalism in america sneers at the unredeemed.

i am questioning the belief system of evangelicals. not what's on the apostles creed on the back of the program when they enter church. the actual belief system they live. christian nationalism is certainly nationalism. but it's not christian.

your charge is to go into the world and use argument, reproof and appeal to bring people to christ. obviously that's not your job alone. but the remnant, the few, those who have the capacity to see what you see in your savior, those people won't see that because true christians are too timid to stand up to the false gospel. true christians are too afraid of the persecution that will come from the false gospel of trump-flavored christianity. which is the supreme irony. true christians have nothing to fear from pagans like me. it's the false gospel christians that stand ready to take you down if you criticize them.

which is too bad because there is much to admire in certain religions and christianity in particular has a sweet appeal. standing up for the weak. finding power in the giving up of power. redemption for those who feel the possibility of redemption has passed them by. hope for the hopeless. but that christianity is gone now.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This is, without question, wrong. If there is any truth in Scripture, it's that God needs no champion. Moses is not the one who bested Pharoah. Gideon is not the one who bested the Midianites. David is not the one who bested Goliath.
1) God said that God will build his church and the gates of hell will not stand against it. (Mt. 16:18). Your view of God's church is too man-centered.
2) Did you know that the Greek word "parakletos", often translated Paraclete, means attorney, advocate, counselor, or defender. Jesus is the Paraclete. In Jn 14-16, Jesus talks about "another" Paraclete that the Father will send after Jesus. In Acts 2, that happens. The Holy Spirit comes on the disciples like a tongue of fire. That Defender is still with the church today.

I understand your sentiment. But, your whole way of thinking is just wrong. And, it's wrong in the same way that you're critiquing the Modern Evangelical church. You think that the church grows by man; that God needs a champion. The MEC thinks that God needs a champion. In many ways, they have stopped using the preaching of the word and are using politics to achieve that end. God's church grows through the preaching of His word and by the Spirit working through the Word. Read Ez. 37. "Can these dry bones live?"

I understand that, and I appreciate it. But, I have no authority to condemn them to hell. By what authority do you think I have do condemn (not their belief system) but them?


It's just more nuanced than that. The group that you're referring to is not an organization. There is not one formal organization call The Christian Nationalist. They don't have a collective soul. They are filled with individuals. We are here treating them like a monolithic individual. That's not how it works.


Right. But, because you are so focused on one particular sub-group of "the world" you view God's church as a failure. In my small group of friends, there is one who goes to the Middle East (he's undergoing some training at the college), one from Hong Kong who is actually evangelizing Americans (love it; we need it); one from Jordan/Egypt who is training to help people in need (not sure where God will lead her). I minister to college kids (I regularly have 40 kids in my house). According to your metric, since none of them condemn the MEC or minister directly to the MEC, they are mis-allocated or it's "too bad". I disagree with this.


No. It's just not single-mindedly focused on your burn ministry.

other than methodist episcopal church i don't know what MEC is. but you're right, this is my issue. the nature of christianity, what it is, what you must do to be a person of god, what god requires of his followers, yes, i think that's a pretty important issue. christians used to think it was. christianity in america in, say, the late 60s and 70s, the upswelling of kids who spoke a new movement that was truly christ-centered, calvary chapels springing up, that whole new expression that remembered, and music to follow that new expression, that was a moment. now we're in a different moment.

you say that god doesn't need a champion but he specifically executes his will through men, according to the bible i know. he doesn't preach his own gospel from the clouds to nonbelievers. he places his own church in charge of that. he doesn't scold those who've fallen away and forgotten their faith. he raises prophets for that. "and i heard the voice of the lord saying, 'who shall i send? who will go for us?' and isaiah said, 'here am i. send me!' but if you don't like the word champion then how about advocate. or just prophet, which is what isaiah was. who is willing to stand up to the philistine? where is david? who is willing to be today's prophet? yes, i want christians to feel downright bad about their timidity, just as i want muslims to feel bad when they sit on their hands after a terrorist act is committed in their god's name. i think a good dose of shame is sometimes just what is called for.

but i'll give you this. christianity has had its high and low points for the last 2000 years. from the montanists in the 2nd century up through to the lollards, hussites, anabaptists and so on, true christianity reemerges from time to time, to be persecuted by the faux-christian establishment. it will probably emerge again. but this is one of the in between points when the establishment is unchallenged.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This series is focused on the intellectual vacuum left by the implosion of the New Atheist movement and on how serious thinkers are reexamining both the existence of God and the case for Christianity.

I'd usually recommend starting with the first episode, but you've mentioned your position about the lack of evidence for God, so maybe Episode 9 might pique your curiosity. It contains conversations with two individuals and what evidence finally convinced them to believe.

That implosion is news to me. I'll have a look out of curiosity but the question-begging description itself reeks of Jordan Peterson's corner of intellectual thought.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Rom. 2: 29: "But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcisions is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

The irony of this last part speaks directly to you. You seek the praise of man, and so you judge everyone by only what he does and you think you have a window to a man's soul. Not so with God. That's why I have a hard time condemning to hell the Modern Evangelical Church. Sure, I think they have missed the mark. But to the cost of their soul? I can't judge that.


Even though you don't understand the Bible and use it like a clay thing to mold it how until it forms to your chosen tool, you get high marks for quoting A Few God Men.

Sorry. I got tired of typing Modern Evangelical Church.

i've waterboarded you enough. thanks for being a gentleman throughout.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I appreciate you.

And, I really appreciate this forum you've set up.

Many thanks.

Which god? There have been thousands of gods through history. Many existing before the rise of Christianity and many after. Much of Christian scripture was taken from prior religious texts. How can Christianity be a true religion when it borrowed most of its core tenets from religions that came before it?

---

Trieatalot

It's a C minus world.

I’ll give it a listen. Wasn’t Christopher Hitchens one of the primary drivers of it? I’d think his death would have a lot to do with it. It does seem like that was a brief period of pushing atheism that has faded. I listen to Sam Harris’ podcast and it hardly ever gets mentioned except in passing.

OK, I listened to the first guy. He said absolutely nothing* that would dissuade me from being an atheist, let alone think Christianity is the one true religion. You've got a guy that sounds like he was basically a nature spiritualist, a Buddhist, and even into Wiccan that then ends up a Christian, essentially because he feels it to be true, that God is talking to him, that there is magic and enchantment in nature which is evidence of the divine (I don't think he actually said that but that's the impression I got). I'm still where I was before listing to it which is that someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.

*He did make some good points about the spiritual void left by modern materialism which frankly I think should make Christianity appealing to many people, but as far as I'm aware, the trends are going in the opposite direction.

OK, listened to the second guy while at the gym. I'm not sure either of these guys were ever atheists that converted to Christianity, especially this guy. But that's neither really here nor there. This guy had a 15-20 second experience in the woods, and then started dreaming about Jesus. OK, that's great for him, but similarly as unconvincing as the first guy.

I appreciate that for you and many others this sort of testimony is evidence of the existence of the supernatural, and even the Christian God in particular. I can only think you've not listened to the arguments of people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. if you think that is the sort of evidence that would move an atheist or agnostic of that stripe in the direction of being a Christian.

I'd also add there was nothing really intellectual about their positions, basically just saying I experienced this, this is what I feel is true, etc.

What are the odds that two guys in the English Isles find Jesus and both end up in Eastern Orthodox Churches?

That was kind of a circular response from TriFloyd. You can't really logically answer the question "How do you know which religion is true (i.e. which is the real god)?" by answering, "I'd go to my God's word for the answer."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Let's be honest about what this means though. The self-proclaimed 4 Horsemen of the New Atheism movement were for the most part kind of dicks. Toss in a healthy dose of misogyny. Add some ethnic hatred and a lot of aggressive tactics and people got tired of them. They acted much like the fundamentalist religious preachers they loved to bash.

That does not mean people are returning to a belief in the supernatural. To the contrary. The numbers of those who claim no belief in a divine being continue to grow.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I disagree with your "(i.e., which is the real god)". I took it to mean, (i.e., which religion actually corresponds to God's word). I think my interpretation is better because Sphere set up the initial problem as cult or false religions. Normally, when people ask that question, they see people being swayed by religions that present themselves as "Christian", and use certain biblical passages to support that. But, they are just a little off. Other posts in the thread buttress this view.

In this way, the whole discussion was "Arguendo". IOW, Sphere was asking (assuming as fact, for the sake for argument, that the Bible and its God are true) how does one determine a false religion? In fact, he asks for a "scriptural firewall" or passages of Scripture to guard against this. He reinforces this "arguendo" when he asks (in Post #4), "Perfect example. Where in Scripture can followers look ..." Thus, he set up (and reinforced) the question as "I don't want to get into a discussion here about whether the Bible is true or the God of the Bible is real; let's just assume, arguendo, that they are."
Most posters got this. Slowman (in our fun back-and-forth) even expressly stated something like "for the sake of argument" a few times, for which I expressly thanked him.

Thus, when Kay or Trieatalot jump in to change the thread to an apology on whether God is true, they are changing the course of Sphere's thread. Fine, that's a common LR thing to hijack a thread. But, it does constitute a hijack, which is why I didn't respond to Kay or Trieatalot. Otherwise, normally, I love talking about apologetics.

If the thread has run its course, then OK, let's have some apologia fun. I just was taking issue with your allegation of me using circular logic. Arguendo discussions are not circular. In symbolic logic, it is setting up a premise/given, which is not later proven.

I listened to a lot of that stuff back in the day and while I'll agree Dawkins and Hitchens could be dicks, I don't remember ever getting the impression of misogyny or ethnic hatred? Then again, I can't remember ever hearing much if anything from Dennett so it's not like I have complete knowledge of the views they put forth.

This goes over part of it - https://qz.com/...cas-atheism-movement

And they really liked to pile on anti-Islamic discussion that kind of bled over into anti-Arab adjacent discussions.

While I agree with a lot of what they say, they could be very difficult men to have a conversation with. Hitchens especially from my POV.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I feel like this is a great and overlooked selling point for Mormonism.

“There are four divisions in the afterlife. The Lake of Fire is reserved for the Devil, his demons, and those who commit the unpardonable sin. The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. The lukewarm-not quite good, not quite evil-go to the Terrestrial Kingdom when they die. This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. The Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous. Here God’s people live forever in God’s presence. We will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate. This is the aim and the end of Mormon salvation.”

So all the bonafide assholes go to hell, the religious zealots go to heaven, and the rest of us get our own freaking planet! Why am I just now hearing about this??

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W