Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity could possibly become a minority religion in US as early as 2045…

I haven't been able to post for a while, so please bear with me as I catch up a bit with my thoughts on what's been discussed. First, a bit of house keeping to tend to:


Do you think it fast-forwarded past the events in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?

Next, with regards to the validity of Paul's letters: Paul was met with skepticism by the original apostles in Jerusalem. He addressed their concerns and apparently convinced them that he was the real deal. They were there, they vetted Paul; therefore, as far as I'm concerned Paul's ministry and letter are valid. Who am I to argue with the guys who were actually there?

On the matter of works: I think it's been well established that works don't save us. Beyond that, as I see it the problem with emphasizing works is that we may start out doing works by which we aim to emulate Christ, works that attempt to please God. That's not altogether a bad thing, if you continually keep in mind that none of what we do is pure in motive; and God is 100% aware of our motives (what's in our hearts). However, our good works, even if they were 100% motivated by a desire to emulate Christ and please God, will also tend to garner praise from man. Then our motives morph into further pleasing man and garnering more praise. The praise goes to our heads, and the first thing you know we're thinking "Who needs a savior? I'm saving myself and those around me with my works." Not good. So, works are fine but we always need to look into our own hearts and be honest about our motives. I'd bet that even Mother Teresa revelled a bit in the praise she got from the world, to say nothing of preachers and lay Christians who do the same thing. We are all guilty. To non-believers that makes us hypocrites; really, it just makes us human.

On the matter of evidence: I'm not a lawyer, but I did recently serve on jury duty. None of us on the juries who heard cases actually saw the alleged crimes being committed. We relied on the testimony of witnesses, experts, and investigators who presented facts to us for consideration. On the basis of this, we had to decide if there was a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant had committed the crime. The point being that another explanation can always be concocted by the defense attorney to explain his client's situation. And there was. But to us, the prosecution's evidence substantially outweighed the alternative explanation of the defense attorney. I think that there is substantial evidence, in the form of eyewitness testimony from multiple individuals, that a man (who had been documented to have performed, by any yardstick you care to use, many miraculous deeds) was executed for crimes he did not commit; and that that man was later seen alive, again by multiple individuals. I wasn't there any more than I was at the drug bust I was on a jury for. But in both cases, there is convincing evidence of what is alleged to have happened. There is not a reasonable doubt in my mind that the drug bust defendant was guilty or that Jesus was seen alive again after having died on the cross. Now, someone else may think that the drug bust defendant was innocent and/or that Jesus was not seen alive after having died. They can always concoct another explanation for what happened over the course of those days. But there IS evidence to that effect that Jesus rose; you are free to evaluate the validity of the evidence for yourself. Obviously, in the case of Jesus, in this world there is a hung jury. Some believe, some do not. But no reasonable person can say there is NO evidence.

Hastings, I think you are dwelling too much on the passages that seem to identify God as a separate entity from Christ, while not allowing other passages their just weight. I think part of that is that the nuances of the Hebrew language don't translate well to English sometimes. The divinity of Christ was, like Paul's stature in the early church, settled a long time ago by people who were a lot closer to the situation than we are today. Nothing wrong with having questions, but I think we should respect the discernments of those who came before us unless and until there is clear and unambiguous reason to do otherwise.

Finally, on the subject of why people are leaving the church: First of all, I usually define "the church" as all the believers in Christ. But I think that in the context of the question, we are talking about the church as a collection of organizations whose purpose is to facilitate the worship of God and bring more people into a saving knowledge of Christ. Given that, as a believer I would have to say that people are leaving the church because they are being deceived. How? Well, all the usual suspects: Materialism, false teaching, peer pressure, etc. To make matters worse, all these things are occurring within the church organization as well as outside of it. If there is little to differentiate between the church organization and the culture it exists in, there is not much incentive to continue to support an institution like that. But again to me it comes down to the resurrection not being emphasized. If people lose sight of the resurrection, then church loses its meaning. Absent the resurrection, Christianity has nothing to offer. However, I am hopeful that, even if physical church attendance is currently declining, people are going to look at what is going on in our culture and see that there is something dreadfully wrong; and that Christianity is not the problem, it is the solution.