Figuring Out Religion

[Ad Orientem]

But the Bible is not God.

Agreed. The Bible itself says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus. I have a hard time relegating the same status to a book. I guess you could say I don't think this belief is "Biblical".

The word your looking for is "heresy."

[Ad Orientem]

Moda Only a very small group of Christians are Scriptural Literalists. Scripture is a major source of doctrine. In that regard it is infallible. But one needs to very careful about taking the historic details at absolute face value.

[madbean]

The word your looking for is "heresy."

"Heresy" is a word I tend to avoid. In the world of Christianity everybody is a heretic in somebody else's eyes. Too bad we can't be more accepting of other people's beliefs without having to cast them out as heretics with all the burning at the stake implications. Sounds more like Islam.

[moda0306]

Moda Only a very small group of Christians are Scriptural Literalists. Scripture is a major source of doctrine. In that regard it is infallible. But one needs to very careful about taking the historic details at absolute face value.

If I'm not mistaken, I've challenged Mountaineer and Desert on several occations about the 100% truth of the Bible and they've never corrected my mis-interpretation of their position.

If your position is different, great! (certainly makes for more reasoned debates)  But they bot seem to be literalists.  Perhaps I was misreading what they were saying.

[Mountaineer]

I have a couple of comments.  The Scriptures are fully God and fully man, just like Jesus... 
... Mountaineer

Ummm no. The Bible is divinely inspired, but it is NOT divine unlike the most Holy Mysteries of the Altar. Perhaps your fingers got the better of your brain. It's happened to me. But the Bible is not God. God exists only in the Three Person of the Trinity.

Oops, my written statement was not intended to say the Bible is God or on the same level as God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.  I do not worship the Bible.  Let me try again, and I'll try to get more thorough and specific than my sloppily written earlier statement that AO and madbean pointed out can be misunderstood.  As you read what I wrote below, remember, the importance of "context", "original manuscripts", and my interpretative method of "Scripture Interprets Scripture" that I've discussed before.  Here is what I believe about Scripture:

The authoritative Word for the church today is the canonical Word, not precanonical sources, forms or traditions, however useful the investigation of these possibilities may on occasion be for a clearer understanding of what the canonical text intends to say.  All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit and that God is therefore the true Author of every word of Scripture.  There is a qualitative difference between the inspired witness of Holy Scripture in all its parts and words and the witness of every other form of human expression, making the Bible a unique book.

I believe that all Scripture bears witness to Jesus Christ and that its primary purpose is to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures are right­ly used only when they are read from the perspective of justification by faith and the proper distinction between Law and Gospel.

Since the saving work of Jesus Christ was accomplished through His personal entrance into our history and His genuinely historical life, death and resurrection, the recognition of the soteriological purpose of Scripture in no sense permits us to call into question or deny the historicity or factuality of matters recorded in the Bible.

I believe and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth.

I believe and confess that since the same God speaks throughout Holy Scripture, there is an organic unity both within and between the Old and New Testaments. While acknowledging the rich variety of language and style in Scripture and recognizing differences of emphasis in various accounts of the same event or topic, I nevertheless affirm that the same doctrine of the Gospel, in all its articles, is presented throughout the entire Scripture.

I reject the view that Holy Scripture, both within and between its various books and authors, presents us with conflicting or contradictory teachings and theologies. I regard this view not only as violating the Scripture’s own understanding of itself, but also as making it impossible for the church to have and confess a unified theological position that is truly Biblical and evangelical.

Since God is the Lord of history and has revealed Himself by acts in history and has in the person of His Son actually entered into man’s history, I acknowledge the historical framework in which the Gospel message is set in Scripture is an essential part of the Word.

Furthermore, the inspired Scriptures are historical documents written in various times, places and circumstances. I believe the Scriptures invite historical investigation and are to be taken seriously as historical documents. However, the Christian interpreter of Scripture cannot adopt uncritically the presuppositions and canons of the secular historian, but he will be guided in his use of historical techniques by the presuppositions of his faith in the Lord of history, who reveals Himself in Holy Scripture as the one who creates, sustains, and even enters our history in order to lead it to His end.

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

The word your looking for is "heresy."

"Heresy" is a word I tend to avoid. In the world of Christianity everybody is a heretic in somebody else's eyes. Too bad we can't be more accepting of other people's beliefs without having to cast them out as heretics with all the burning at the stake implications. Sounds more like Islam.

It is unfortunate that the term heresy has become connected with violence. Such is not the historic and Christian approach. The use of coercive violence appears to be mostly a development of early second millennium Christianity in the West. But the term is very much a part of legitimate Christian tradition and discipline even though the violence is not. The sanctions discussed in Scripture and by the early Fathers of the Church and that are mentioned in the Apostolic Canons are suspension from the Holy Sacraments and exclusion from the body of the faithful. Another word people get squishy about... Excommunication.

[Ad Orientem]

Mountaineer
Thanks for the clarification.

[moda0306]

So Mountaineer... please answer me this...

Are you saying that some of the accounts of Jesus' ressurection might not be 100% factual?

Either they are 100% factual, or they have some errors in accuracy.  Please inform me of which one you believe to be true.

[Mountaineer]

This is extremely important!

If Mountaineer is suggesting that while the Bible is 100% God's will as it is written, but not necessarily 100% true (I'd assert that the Bible CAN'T be 100% true, and it appears that this is the case), than I've been mis-hearing him for a while.

And this begs the next huge question.  How do we know what is 100% true, and what is "close enough, but not quite right, because it was written by a fallible man."

This begs a ton of other questions about "interpretation" of the Bible's passages.

Holy crap I've think we've dropped a powder-keg into this thread.

Yes, it is extremely important.

And potentially liberating.

In Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus said that the mustard seed was smaller than all seeds. This is, in fact, not true. Orchid seeds are smaller.

I'm willing to cut Jesus some slack due to the "fully human" part of his nature but I think this might be some kind of slippery slope for Mountaineer to go down. I could be satan.

Moda and madbean, did you read the "clarification" I wrote about Scripture?  Your last couple of posts tell me "not yet".

... Mountaineer

[madbean]

Another word people get squishy about... Excommunication.

You can excommunicate me any day of the week from whatever church you belong to and twice on Sunday.

I'll take my chances in the afterlife.

[Mountaineer]

Another word people get squishy about... Excommunication.

You can excommunicate me any day of the week from whatever church you belong to and twice on Sunday.

I'll take my chances in the afterlife.

FYI, the I think the purpose of excommunication is to drive the sinner to repentance - i.e. turn away from your evil sinful ways and return to hearing the Lord's Word and asking for the Lord's mercy.  Ultimate purpose is to "save" people from eternal hell (now moda will get all squishy over the word hell  ).

... Mountaineer

[madbean]

Another word people get squishy about... Excommunication.

You can excommunicate me any day of the week from whatever church you belong to and twice on Sunday.

I'll take my chances in the afterlife.

FYI, the I think the purpose of excommunication is to drive the sinner to repentance - i.e. turn away from your evil sinful ways and return to hearing the Lord's Word and asking for the Lord's mercy.  Ultimate purpose is to "save" people from eternal hell (now moda will get all squishy over the word hell  ).

... Mountaineer

For the record I ain't repentin' from no excommunication from the likes of you or Ad Orientem or any church either of you belong to.

I'll take my chances with Jesus in the afterlife, thank you both.

[Ad Orientem]

You can excommunicate me any day of the week from whatever church you belong to and twice on Sunday.

I'll take my chances in the afterlife.

FYI, the I think the purpose of excommunication is to drive the sinner to repentance - i.e. turn away from your evil sinful ways and return to hearing the Lord's Word and asking for the Lord's mercy.  Ultimate purpose is to "save" people from eternal hell (now moda will get all squishy over the word hell  ).

... Mountaineer

For the record I ain't repentin' from no excommunication from the likes of you or Ad Orientem or any church either of you belong to.

I'll take my chances with Jesus in the afterlife, thank you both.

Matthew 18:15-17
2 John 1:10

[Mountaineer]

This is extremely important!

If Mountaineer is suggesting that while the Bible is 100% God's will as it is written, but not necessarily 100% true (I'd assert that the Bible CAN'T be 100% true, and it appears that this is the case), than I've been mis-hearing him for a while.

And this begs the next huge question.  How do we know what is 100% true, and what is "close enough, but not quite right, because it was written by a fallible man."

This begs a ton of other questions about "interpretation" of the Bible's passages.

Holy crap I've think we've dropped a powder-keg into this thread.

Yes, it is extremely important.

And potentially liberating.

In Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus said that the mustard seed was smaller than all seeds. This is, in fact, not true. Orchid seeds are smaller.

I'm willing to cut Jesus some slack due to the "fully human" part of his nature but I think this might be some kind of slippery slope for Mountaineer to go down. I could be satan.

Moda and madbean, did you read the "clarification" I wrote about Scripture?  Your last couple of posts tell me "not yet".

... Mountaineer

Moda and madbean,

I'm still waiting.  I guess you guys lost interest after I addressed in excruciating detail moda's question about my beliefs relating to Scripture?  Sorry to have taken the fun out of your "shark feed"  and expectations (powder keg?) that I was somehow denying God's truth. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Yes, it is extremely important.

And potentially liberating.

In Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus said that the mustard seed was smaller than all seeds. This is, in fact, not true. Orchid seeds are smaller.

I'm willing to cut Jesus some slack due to the "fully human" part of his nature but I think this might be some kind of slippery slope for Mountaineer to go down. I could be satan.

Moda and madbean, did you read the "clarification" I wrote about Scripture?  Your last couple of posts tell me "not yet".

... Mountaineer

Moda and madbean,

I'm still waiting.  I guess you guys lost interest after I addressed in excruciating detail moda's question about my beliefs relating to Scripture?  Sorry to have taken the fun out of your "shark feed"  and expectations (powder keg?) that I was somehow denying God's truth. 

... Mountaineer

I did read it, and with all-due respect, the clarifications didn't do much to help me determine a clear position on the following question:

Are the claims in the Bible 100% accurate in their description of reality, or are there some inaccurate account of reality??

If the latter... that's ok.

But this is an either/or question.  Later clarifications are welcome, but please just answer this question first, so we know which premises you are operating under.

[Mountaineer]

Moda and madbean, did you read the "clarification" I wrote about Scripture?  Your last couple of posts tell me "not yet".

... Mountaineer

Moda and madbean,

I'm still waiting.  I guess you guys lost interest after I addressed in excruciating detail moda's question about my beliefs relating to Scripture?  Sorry to have taken the fun out of your "shark feed"  and expectations (powder keg?) that I was somehow denying God's truth. 

... Mountaineer

I did read it, and with all-due respect, the clarifications didn't do much to help me determine a clear position on the following question:

Are the claims in the Bible 100% accurate in their description of reality, or are there some inaccurate account of reality??

If the latter... that's ok.

But this is an either/or question.  Later clarifications are welcome, but please just answer this question first, so we know which premises you are operating under.

What is reality?  Who determines what is real and what is not, and what is the time period and context of that reality?  How is reality determined?  Is reality determined by what you can "test" with your five senses, or by some other method?  You don't need to answer, but I have a sense that you and I do not understand the answers to these "reality" questions in the same way so it would be rather pointless for me to give an answer to your question - it really, from my perspective, is not an either/or question; it strikes me as a "do you still beat your wife" type question.  There are way too many nebulous possibilities that will lead us into another series of rabbit trails.  Do you see it differently?  From my perspective, I don't see how in the world you could see my "clarified" statement about my beliefs as unclear so you are going to have to help me understand what it is you are trying to drive toward.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I'm trying to drive towards the fact that if the Bible conflicts on certain facts than it CAN NOT be 100% true.

If the Bible isn't 100% true, even if it is the Word of God, then it is up for interpretation how accurate certain explanations are.  It conflicts with your previous statements that the Bible is 100% true.

Perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining the inadequacy of your clarifications to own up to the inadequacy of the absolute truth of The Bible, as well as all the implications that this has on how we approach Christianity as a potential source of Truth.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I'm trying to drive towards the fact that if the Bible conflicts on certain facts than it CAN NOT be 100% true.

If the Bible isn't 100% true, even if it is the Word of God, then it is up for interpretation how accurate certain explanations are.  It conflicts with your previous statements that the Bible is 100% true.

Perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining the inadequacy of your clarifications to own up to the inadequacy of the absolute truth of The Bible, as well as all the implications that this has on how we approach Christianity as a potential source of Truth.

I would ask you the same questions about "fact" that I did about "reality", by whose definition, etc.  I think this will be another rabbit trail.  It really does not matter too much what you call it - fact, reality, logic, etc. - it is just a diversion and misses the major point of your deep down inward knowing there is a God (hopefully the Christian one since that is the only one that can keep you from condemning yourself to hell) but living in denial (my opinion) for whatever reason you have for so doing.  As Desert says, there is no sin too big for God to forgive - other than unbelief (if you persist in unbelief, God will finally give in and give you what you are asking for and living like you want it - eternal separation from Him and eternal torment).

If you refuse to acknowledge there is a source of ultimate Truth (I'm making an assumption here, forgive me if I read you incorrectly), then the game is over before it begins and no further discussion will be of value (my opinion); however, it might be of entertainment value though, just nothing important.  If you do acknowledge there is an ultimate source of Truth, then what do you think it is, if it is something other than the Christian God, and why do you believe that?

And more importantly, where in my belief statements about Scripture did you ever get the idea I do not believe Scripture is Truth?  Or did I misread what you wrote?  It seems you are major nit-picking on wanting the Bible to not be true.  Do you just not want to acknowledge that God's Word is authorative?  That does require one to give up the idea of being in charge of your destiny you know.  This focus on nit-picking is like if I say moda is a human being, but someone else says, no, I think he has brown hair and all the humans I know are blonds, therefore moda is not human.  It just does not matter - you are 100% human anyway (I think  ). 

Personally, I have not come across any unexplainable contradictions in the Scriptures and God knows that I've looked for them - but you have to remember the method of interpretation that I believe is the correct one to use (previously discussed).  I'll say this one more time - even though the Bible contains ALL the evidence you NEED to be saved from eternal damnation, you will NEVER be able to logically prove it.  Faith my friend, faith, is the answer and I've explained repeatedly how to best assure your spark of it does not extinguish before it is too late.  However, you do not seem willing to pursue matters of ultimate importance because it might require too much time or effort on your part when you could be bar hopping or working out to improve yourself or feel good in this life.  Ugh.  I really do not want to hear you have extinguished that spark just because you are satisfied with a short-lived matchstick and not an eternal flame. 

So, after that long-winded tome, what is it you are pursuing, or avoiding, by sticking to your unbelief?  (By my definition, there are only two categories that are important - believers and unbelievers.  Agnostics are just lukewarm unbelievers and it you consider the message to the Laodicia church in Revelation 3:14-22, lukewarm is really, really bad.)

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

After having reflected on the religion question for a few months, I am now more convinced than ever of the following:

1. All religions are cultural constructs that are created to meet the spiritual needs of a society at a certain time and place in their history.

2. When properly conceived and followed, a religious outlook on life can often make for a more meaningful and enjoyable trip through life.

3. There is something in almost all human beings that makes us want to connect spiritually with something outside of ourselves or greater than ourselves, and this feeling transcends culture and time.

4. Opportunistic individuals will always use the principles above to separate people from their money and/or their freedom, whether through fraudulent religion or fraudulent secular institutions like government that harness the principles above for non-religious purposes--e.g., the way Communism places the state in the position a deity would typically occupy in society.

Thus, one should be careful in choosing his religion and religious leaders.

The problem I have been wrestling with since about 2005 is that once a mental belief edifice falls apart, it is often impossible to put back together.  For example, when I was a child I reached that moment where I realized that Santa Claus was not real and that it had all been a story I was told to make Christmas a more magical experience.  No matter how hard I had tried, once I made that realization it would not have been possible to return to my state of pure belief in Santa Claus from which I had gotten so much pleasure during the period I believed it, in part because there was simply nothing to support the belief other than my desire for it to be true and the conspiracy of others to help make me believe that it was true.

I feel similarly about religion, and it's probably why the topic bothers me the way that it does.  I'm not like one of those people who can shake off childlike beliefs as they age and never look back.  I want to return to that place where a belief in God comforts me and provides a context for hope, but I can't unsee what I have seen, and some of the things I have seen are the following:

The premise of the Old Testament is that there was one God, but he only cared about the Jews.  The rest of humanity was expendable and meaningless.  That's a bizarre thing to try to comprehend, and the only perspective that makes any sense to me is that the God of Moses was simply an early monotheistic cultural institution that provided better service to that culture than worshiping cows or sticks or a statue.

The God of the New Testament bears no resemblance whatsoever to the God of the Old Testament.  None.  Zero.  Not the same guy.  IMHO, the reason for this difference is that the God of the New Testament was designed for a very different audience than the God of the Old Testament--i.e., the Greek and Roman world in addition to open-minded Jews.  Like the Old Testament God, the New Testament God was also a monotheistic cultural institution that provided better service to that culture than the polytheistic belief systems it competed with, and that's all cool, but it certainly doesn't help make the overall Bible more believable, given that the Bible appears to be talking about two entirely different deities in the first and second halves of the book, even though it calls them by the same name.  The Jewish authorities of the time, and most Jews since then, would say that the whole New Testament is not the word of God because Jesus was just a man, and he was definitely not the Messiah.

When it comes to the question of the Bible being the inerrant, infallible, etc. word of God, I get tired because there are so many holes, inconsistencies, contradictions, and simply wrong things in it that it seems like there would no longer be any question that the Bible was simply the work of a group of writers who were serious in their beliefs and who wanted to make their beliefs as appealing and appetizing as possible to others, not to mention the fact that adding supernatural embellishments to the stories about great people was a standard literary device over virtually the entire period of history covered by the Bible.  Of course the Bible is not 100% true.  The entire earth never flooded, every animal on the earth didn't fit onto one boat.  Not every human being is descended from Noah's family.  God didn't impregnate Mary with Jesus.  Jesus didn't rise from the grave and travel around for a few more days teaching just to show the Jewish and Roman authorities that they couldn't kill him. 

And how about this for a big hole: There was no heaven or mention of internal life anywhere in the Old Testament.  In fact, Solomon went out of his way in Ecclesiastes to gripe about how much of a bummer it was that when you died you just died.  In the Old Testament you obeyed God's will because you didn't want to get your ass kicked, your crops destroyed, or your children killed when God realized you had been misbehaving.  This was the principal source of motivation in the Old Testament, and even still God would sometimes toy with people who hadn't done anything wrong like Job and go ahead and ruin his crops, kick his ass and kill his children for no apparent reason at all.  In the New Testament, though, all of the sudden there is this new path to immortality based on following a set of teachings laid down by Jesus that were utterly at odds with the Jewish Law that he said no longer needed to be followed.  Under Jewish Law, slavery was okay, homosexuality was a capital offense, women were basically property, raping and pillaging were acceptable in wartime, etc.  Jesus's message sweeps all of that away, but it makes you wonder if there was some kind of transition period where you could find God's favor by only following the Jewish Law and ignoring Jesus's teachings.  And if the New Testament is true, who was that first person who got into Heaven under the new covenant?  What a bummer it must have been to have died right before that went into effect. 

Overall, I recognize the longing in myself and others for a God-like entity to be out there, and in a sense I know that there is some force out there that is beyond my comprehension because there is a creation around me that I don't fully comprehend that implies a creator I also do not fully comprehend, but to me it's comical to suggest that all of the answers to those questions that arise in me and many others more or less spontaneously could be adequately addressed in a book containing the highly embellished history from thousands of years ago of a minor tribe from the Mediterranean region, and the similarly embellished stories about a country preacher from that same region during the period of Roman occupation who was executed by the authorities after claiming to be God.

That's just sort of where I'm at right now.  I still find Jesus's teachings as reflected in the New Testament gospels to be very solid principles for living, but more and more I just try to skip over the supernatural stuff.  To me, Jesus's message stands on its own without the need for supernatural validation.  Its truth is self-evident in the effect it has on the lives of people who follow his teachings.

[MachineGhost]

Thus, one should be careful in choosing his religion and religious leaders.

I noticed the Great MT posted in this begotten thread, so just had to stop in momentarily to see what he had to say.

All very sensible, as usual.  Carry on!

[align=center][/align]

[Mountaineer]

.......

That's just sort of where I'm at right now.  I still find Jesus's teachings as reflected in the New Testament gospels to be very solid principles for living, but more and more I just try to skip over the supernatural stuff.  To me, Jesus's message stands on its own without the need for supernatural validation.  Its truth is self-evident in the effect it has on the lives of people who follow his teachings.

You appear to be in the company of the Diest, Thomas Jefferson, or the moralistic view of Scripture held by most other world religions that are not based upon "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God".

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Tremendous, MT. That's more or less where I'm at as well, though I was never raised particularly religiously so I never had that moment where it all fell apart. Rather, I feel like every time I try to put the pieces together for the first time, they just don't fit.

And when I ask Christians for clarification or help, I hear many permutations of "getting them to fit isn't the point," or "you're putting them together wrong," but those aren't very satisfying answers to me because my entire goal is discover some sort of truth or meaning. I feel like I want to go on a quest for answers and what I hear from Christian evangelicalism is that the first step is to somehow gain absolute, unwavering faith in the very thing that I'm hoping to discover. It seems to be a set of religions totally unsuited to exploration, mystery, or personal spiritual development. The whole point seems to be first saving yourself from Hell, and then only after you're safe from that can you enter the clubhouse and maybe talk about deep stuff and have bake sales.

[Mountaineer]

Tremendous, MT. That's more or less where I'm at as well, though I was never raised particularly religiously so I never had that moment where it all fell apart. Rather, I feel like every time I try to put the pieces together for the first time, they just don't fit.

And when I ask Christians for clarification or help, I hear many permutations of "getting them to fit isn't the point," or "you're putting them together wrong," but those aren't very satisfying answers to me because my entire goal is discover some sort of truth or meaning. I feel like I want to go on a quest for answers and what I hear from Christian evangelicalism is that the first step is to somehow gain absolute, unwavering faith in the very thing that I'm hoping to discover. It seems to be a set of religions totally unsuited to exploration, mystery, or personal spiritual development. The whole point seems to be first saving yourself from Hell, and then only after you're safe from that can you enter the clubhouse and maybe talk about deep stuff and have bake sales.

And potlucks!  And coffee!  And beer!  And fantastic sex (your own spouse of the opposite sex only and in private  ) to address your last sentence.

For the first bolded statement - then go on a quest to the nearest LC-MS church, or equivalent, that faithfully preaches and teaches the Word.

For the second bolded statement - that is 180 degrees off of my experience, for what it is worth.  I've never come across another subject that is so big that it would take many lifetimes to explore only the revealed parts - God is unfathomable to us humans so I won't even try to explain that part.  As for the spiritual development, depends on how much effort you choose to devote to the exploration of God's Word I suspect.

... Mountaineer

Edited to add:  Perhaps this will help - http://www.hope-aurora.org/pages/NewDecision

Excerpt (click link to read entire article and get the answer to the last question posed in the excerpted material):

“Have you made a decision for Christ?”? One often hears this question from radio and television preachers, or even from our friends and family. “Have you invited Jesus into your heart? Have you received Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you dedicated your life to Christ?”? Many churches have a “Time of Decision”? at the end of their services, with altar calls and emotional appeals for the person to respond. All of these questions rotate around this same premise: the unbeliever has the ability and responsibility to choose Jesus. But is this what the Bible teaches? Can the unbeliever make a decision for Christ?

Additional Thoughts (not mine)

Richard Jensen (RIP) used the idea that we "accept" our new status - the new status God gives us in baptism. Our acceptance (or decision) doesn't create that new status, it is recognizing what God has done for us.

John Westerhoff III's stages of faith have one moving from an experienced faith (my summary: "This is what we do" - young children just copying the right behaviors) to an affiliative faith ("This is what we believe") through a questioning faith ("Do I really believe this?") to an owned faith ("This is what I believe").

Perhaps phrased in another way, the convictions of the church (our faith) become also my personal convictions (my faith). One might say, "The church confesses that a virgin gave birth to Jesus, but I'm not convinced of that."

I believe it becomes a problem when "personal" (the Lutheran pro me) aspect of faith becomes a private faith: it's just about "me and God." A phrase I remember hearing often is that "faith is personal but it is not private." It is to be lived within a community. It is to be expressed through witnessing and service to others.

[Mountaineer]

For you who have been turned off by religion, is this the type of religion that you have been exposed to?  It sure would be a turn off for me (and was, although my upbringing was in a Methodist church).  This quote is from another forum I read and the characterization of the "Southern Baptist" seems to agree pretty much with what I have experienced from my SB and other Evangelical type friends.


You can schmooze with the Southern Baptists all you want, but you don't live in a Southern Baptist culture, if I recall correctly. I believe you have said before that you live in New Jersey. I have been to New Jersey myself and I would classify it as a predominately Roman Catholic state, with a sizable amount of mainline Protestants (PCUSA, UCC, ELCA, UMC,and ECUSA ) along with a mixture of many other things.  Whatever it is, I think we would both agree that it is not a majority Baptist culture. However, I live in upstate South Carolina, one of the most Southern Baptist (and Republican) areas of the country.  If you talk to anybody here in South Carolina, you are going to be "schmoozing with Southern Baptists" because Southern Baptists are to South Carolina what Mormons are to Utah: everywhere present and filling almost all things! In my experience, I have not found that Southern Baptists talk about "Jesus" more than Lutherans or more than anyone else for that matter.  What I have discovered by living among them, is their predilection for:

1. talking about the "rapture"
2. talking about tithing 
3. talking about hiding the liquor when the preacher or their relatives visit
4. talking about Christmas party the Mary-Martha Sunday School Class is having
5. a superstitious  use of "Christian" bumper stickers and "Christian" themed license plates (The SBC equivalent of Catholic lawn statues.)
6. telling people that Christians are mandated by God to support the secular state of Israel
7. always talking about James Dobson and Dave Ramsey and "Financial Peace University"
8. hiding the name "Baptist" in their new mission starts, for instance "Simpsonville Community Church" is actually a SBC church, but they try to hide it.
9. telling you how Edna Mae's granddaughter "got saved" last summer at cheerleading camp, when all the girl did was put her hand up at an impromptu prayer meeting hosted by teenage girls on a sugar and caffeine high and now she's "eternally secure." That's what I would call spiritual delusion, but that's another topic.
10. Constantly harping about how evil and liberal the gov't is and how welfare, food stamps and medical aid for the poor should be totally eliminated, how the death penalty should be used MUCH more frequently than it currently is, and how chain-gangs of prison labor ought to be revived. 
11. Constantly harping about how evil evolution is and wanting to mandate prayer in the public schools.
12. (And my personal favorite) how they cancel Sunday worship services in their churches when Christmas falls on a Sunday because "Christmas is all about family.  What would you want to ruin it with church?"

That's what life is like in my corner of the Southern Baptist universe.  I'd take Lutheran Minnesota any day over a Baptist culture.


... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

But seriously... I don't know how certain people can actually gun/knife/beat down innocent children.

Theological answer:  Original sin.

Practical answer:  If they deem the children as "not innocent".  If they kill in abstentia (e.g. a remote drone pilot).  If they convince themselves the victims aren't really as "human" as the killer or his culture.  If they think there is a good chance the children will grow up and be worse off than if dead.  If they think what they are doing is for the greater good.  If they think the killing is not a reflection of their own sinfulness.  If they think they are not sinners.  Etc., Etc.

I wonder the same thing you enumerated about "How can people condone abortion?"  I expect some of my proposed answers to your question would apply to that issue as well.  So, the practical answer and the theological answer converge.  Same answer, original sin, is responsible for much of our actual sin.

... Mountaineer