Christians launch defence of faith 'under attack'

[Magic Man]

Who are your heroes? Who are New Atheists? You're feigning ignorance ....

I'll try to decode this. Is this the response you intended to make:

"The people who are attacking Christianity are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the other 'new atheists' and their followers'."

I'm assuming so from your jumbled response. So, then the question is what isn't being attacked by those standards. By those standards, Islam is being attacked, as well as Buddhism, and football and soccer and cell phones and iPhones...I could go on and on. Yes, some people think Christianity is wrong and should go. Some people think soccer is wrong and should go. So? Aside from people expressing their opinions on Christianity, how is it being attacked?

For instance, the LGBT community is being attacked through measures to keep them out of the military openly and to keep them from getting married. What measures are being taken to attack Christianity?

 

[Midnight Pete]

I know that this is addressed to MP, but I have a few opinions....

As we know, the Church has been cannabalizing itself. The Roman Catholics are at the center of sex scandals that have brought to light pervasive sexual abuse amongst clergy from every Christian sect. Also, the Church is dealing with homosexuality, bioethics, politics, and fiscal issues -- and splitting and breaking fellowship over the smallest disagreement. So Christians are losing faith in the Church as a safe place to express their Christianity - they feel attacked, and they are - but not from without, from within.

The Church doesn't want to blame itself. It lashes out at every scrapegoat.

Good point, AG. The Church *is* suffering attacks from both within and without. It would be just as negligent to ignore the inner attacks (attacks against self) as it would be ignore the outer attacks (attacks from others). The relationship between the two is profound.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good point, AG. The Church *is* suffering attacks from both within and without. It would be just as negligent to ignore the inner attacks (attacks against self) as it would be ignore the outer attacks (attacks from others). The relationship between the two is profound.

I don't think that there are attacks from the outside that are as significant as those on the inside. Has any outsider ever caused a significant schism in the church?

In my reading of church history, the great corrections of church policy, theology, and philosophy have come from outside influences. There is not one case in history where a great church leader has significantly changed the direction of the church without being forced by popular demand or being greatly influenced by secular philosophy or science. The church is designed specifically NOT to be a self-correcting entity, and it is the visionary leaders who kept an eye on secular philosophy, science, art, music, and politics -- the very things that some see as 'attacks' on the church -- that have kept the church as honest and relevant as it can be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who are your heroes? Who are New Atheists? You're feigning ignorance ....

I guess that's your answer for "who"; now what about your answer for "how"?

The article bemoaned the fact that Christianity is losing its influence in society and called this an "attack". I don't think it is; I think it's just a reflection of the fact that fewer and fewer people are Christian.

IMO, you don't have a right to a "Christian" society. You, as a Christian, definitely have a right to participate in society, but so do I, an atheist. So does everyone else... and our society is going to be the combined product of everyone in it.

As Christianity drops in popularity, the only way to maintain a "Christian" society is to deny the basic rights of non-Christians. I utterly reject this.

When I say "the faith" I mean the Christian faith as per the OP title.

Okay - I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

I know that this is addressed to MP, but I have a few opinions....

As we know, the Church has been cannabalizing itself. The Roman Catholics are at the center of sex scandals that have brought to light pervasive sexual abuse amongst clergy from every Christian sect. Also, the Church is dealing with homosexuality, bioethics, politics, and fiscal issues -- and splitting and breaking fellowship over the smallest disagreement. So Christians are losing faith in the Church as a safe place to express their Christianity - they feel attacked, and they are - but not from without, from within.

The Church doesn't want to blame itself. It lashes out at every scrapegoat.

But this is hardly new, and it's much more minor than it has been in the past.

For instance, the article mentioned the Catholic Church being "attacked" by being "forced" to make its state-supported adoption agency adhere to normal anti-discrimination rules. Contrast this with a few hundred years back, when it was a capital offense for a Catholic priest to celebrate Mass.

I guess I don't see when in history any church was the "safe place" you describe. I mean, the state-sanctioned denomination had governmental protection and received (and still receives) special benefit and preferential treatment over other denominations, but I think that today, even members of this chosen denomination generally agree that this special status should be removed and that they should be treated on an equal basis with other denominations.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But this is hardly new, and it's much more minor than it has been in the past.
I guess I don't see when in history any church was the "safe place" you describe.

First, I did not suggest that the situation is new - quite the contrary as I expressed in my next post.

Second, "safe" is relative. I had in mind families that worshipped for generations at a particular church, giving and having an enriching experience, only to discover that their kids were being molested. Or they lose faith because of other atrocities.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I don't think that there are attacks from the outside that are as significant as those on the inside.

That's a weird statement.

Has any outsider ever caused a significant schism in the church?

The Church does not exist in isolation from the rest of the world. It never has.

 

[waitasec]

[youtube]GLvn5p2Ztdo[/youtube]
YouTube - Court Acquits Protestor of Unconstitutional Prayer at Hawaii Senate


balancefx brought this to the table on another thread...
lets see who's being attacked here

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's a weird statement.

How so? Do you know of any "attacks" on the church from philosophers or scientists (or anyone) that was more of a threat to the church than say - the Gnostics, Constantine's institutionalization, the Great Schism, the Crusades, the Reformation, the religious wars in Europe, the Inquisition, the witch trials, serving the Nazis, molesting children, and so on?

Perhaps you can just pick one secular or pagan attack and compare it to one Christian attack on itself.

The Church does not exist in isolation from the rest of the world. It never has.

That's why I consider Christianity a pagan religion. The seperation is just a charade.

 

[Midnight Pete]

How so? Do you know of any "attacks" on the church from philosophers or scientists (or anyone) that was more of a threat to the church than say - the Gnostics, Constantine's institutionalization, the Great Schism, the Crusades, the Reformation, the religious wars in Europe, the Inquisition, the witch trials, serving the Nazis, molesting children, and so on?

Perhaps you can just pick one secular or pagan attack and compare it to one Christian attack on itself.



That's why I consider Christianity a pagan religion. The seperation is just a charade.

Why do you pretend to be Christian when it's clear that you're secular?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why do you pretend to be Christian when it's clear that you're secular?

Why can't you manufacture a disctintion between the two that is not artificial?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Why can't you manufacture a disctintion between the two that is not artificial?

That's one difference I don't have to manufacture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's one difference I don't have to manufacture.

Yes, it just exists out there, needing no interpretation.

Because everyone understands how you think "Christian" is different from "secular."

 

[Falvlun]

Why can't you manufacture a disctintion between the two that is not artificial?

I was with you up to this point. Isn't the distinction between religion and secularity definitional?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was with you up to this point. Isn't the distinction between religion and secularity definitional?

"Religion" is merely the spiritualization of the secular. The secular activity becomes ritual which becomes religious // or the religious becomes ritual only and then secularized.

That's why I said it was a charade.

 

[The Bright Beast]

Personally, I believe faith in public should be under attack. However, in private, it is up to you if you choose to practice religions (I consider places of worship to be private, in this example.) By public, I mean schools, hospitals, shopping centres, the street, the government etc.

EG: When I was in primary school, we had to pray. If we didn't, then we were not allowed to eat our lunch. Now, someone who is against praying (and there was one girl) would have have to do something they disagree with or they wouldn't get FOOD. Or they would have to do something against their moral code. Is this right? Schools should not make religion a central part of the school eg: we had a only christian assembly every day. Nor should there be allowed to be a religious school in the area, if there is not a similarly achieving secular school within reasonable distance (up to around 3 miles.)

My next point focusses on the government - no law should be allowed/disallowed on the basis of religion. In effect, this contradicts my whole argument here, but life is full of contradictions. But, laws with a reasoning based on religion should simply not be allowed. That works both ways too, not just against religion. There should be no law saying "You can't have abortions because it makes baby jesus cry." A valid argument could be "You can't have abortions because it is preventing a potential person." Similarly, there should be no law saying: "Crucifixes should be banned in public." (On the topic of crucifixes - if they present a health and safety risk, then they should not be allowed. Eg: we aren't allowed to wear necklaces in school, but you are allowed to wear a crucifix. Not right.)

Finally, tax and holidays.

I think you should be allowed to have time off work to respect holidays of the religion you belong to. (obviously not just one you made on the spot.) You should have to declare your religion when applying for a job so this can be checked, but not used against anyone in a discriminatory manner. Shops should remain open on ALL days, and tithing places of worship should have to pay taxes, as they are, in my eyes, profitable organisations. OR, the money should be strictly controlled and be used for the good of the community.

In conclusion, I believe everyone should be allowed total freedom of religion, without discrimination. However, it should not 'infiltrate' our public lives, and get in the way of what is beneficial for society.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask

 

[Falvlun]

"Religion" is merely the spiritualization of the secular. The secular activity becomes ritual which becomes religious // or the religious becomes ritual only and then secularized.

That's why I said it was a charade.

"merely the spiritualization"? Isn't that a pretty big difference? There is fluidity from one to the other, but that's not to say that they both describe the same state.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Why do you pretend to be Christian when it's clear that you're secular?

This comment is not to defend angellous evangellous since he is more then capable to do that himself. I just find the subdivisions of Secular and Religious very interesting in todays Christian Church.

I was in bible college when the "liberal secular" theologians were at the end of being purged from many of the moderate evangelical seminaries (1980s). I believe this attack on the intellectuals of the Christian Church was to be expected. It seems that one of the effects of modern and post modern thought on religion is the flattening and dulling of religion. When the common belief of a society is that the material is real and the spiritual is unreal. This tends to box in religious thought. The raise of religious fundamentalism in the last 1/2 of the 20th century has affected all religions. If you look at pictures of crowds muslims early in the last century you will find many women with their heads uncovered. You would also find a very healthy debate between Liberal,Neo-orthodox,and Traditional Theologians in the first half of the last century. Today this has changed.

Today I have talked to some recent graduates from seminary who don't even know Reinhold Niebuhr. This Christians Theologian ethics was a huge influence on all areas of American life; Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as John McCain and Ronald Reagan all point to Niebuhr as there ethical influence there public life. Even MLK was very Influenced by him until he found a better Theologian Gandhi . Today Niebuhr would be called secular by many.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the Christian Martyr of WWII. He was a German who gave his life against Hitler. Christians love him and produce movies about him yet if you read his writings you will find he no longer meets the Evangelical idea of "Christian". It seems that now many Evangelicals are now turning their backs on the likes of C.S.Lewis and Billy Graham because they believe that God might save people from other faiths. There is just no end to how extreme the church is willing to go.

I see American Christian Evangelicalism as a movement without Intellectuals or an argument that makes sense in our modern world. Maybe it is time to reengage just like your leaders use to do.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Yes, it just exists out there, needing no interpretation.

Because everyone understands how you think "Christian" is different from "secular."

"Secular" is another way of saying "non-Christian" or "non-religious." Just like "Gentile" refers to anyone who is not Jewish.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Secular" is another way of saying "non-Christian" or "non-religious." Just like "Gentile" refers to anyone who is not Jewish.

No, it's not.

Terms like "Christian" or "non-religious" describe a person's own religious beliefs. Terms like "secular" or "theocrat" describe a person's views on what role religion should play in society.

For instance, freedom of religion is a secular value. If you're in favour of freedom of religion, you're secular to a significant extent. This in no way implies that you're "non-Christian".

 

[waitasec]

The Church *is* suffering attacks from both within and without.

suffice to say the church is it's own worst enemy
what do you think?

Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
Jim & Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, 1986 and 1991
Peter Popoff, 1987
Morris Cerullo, 1990s
Mike Warnke, 1991
Robert Tilton, 1991
W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
Bob Moorehead, 1998
Roy Clements, 1999
John Paulk, 2000
Paul Crouch, 2004
Douglas Goodman, 2004
Kent Hovind, 2006
Ted Haggard, 2006
Paul Barnes, 2006
Lonnie Latham, 2006
Gilbert Deya, 2006
Richard Roberts, 2007
Richard Roberts, 2007
Earl Paulk, 2007
Coy Privette, 2007
Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
Michael Reid, 2008
Joe Barron, 2008
Todd Bentley, 2008
George Alan Rekers, 2010
Eddie L. Long, 2010
Westboro Baptist Church
Faithful Word Baptist Church