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

Mr 6:11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them."

Some people just aren't going to listen or learn from the scriptures that are clear. Shake the dust off your feet and don't waste your time.

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.

The man that demands empirical evidence for the existence of God is dishonest in his demand. Dishonest because there are uncountable things that he witnesses every day and knows to be true that are impossible to prove with empirical evidence.

There_Ya_Go,

Your last post was a damn good one ~ as your posts on these matters typically are. Thanks for posting it up.

Thank you sir. Your and others' posts have been much more timely and on point throughout, and have carried this discussion much deeper and farther than it would have otherwise gone.

Regarding your last post..... Loved your perspective...simple and to the point...you wrote it in a way that anyone can understand.....simply great and thanks.

IZH27....good one too....

Since the New Testament and early Christians called Jesus Lord, we have difficulty many times determining whether Jesus or God is meant by Lord. The two words, "Lord Jesus" composed the first Christian confession of faith (1Corinthians 12:3 and Romans 10:9). The decisive reason for transferring the divine title Lord to Jesus was His resurrection from the dead. Before His resurrection, Jesus was addressed with the Jewish title of honor Rabbi (teacher). Luke always, and Matthew usually, translated this title into Greek as Lord.

The resurrection changed the respectful student/teacher relationship of the disciples with Jesus into the believer's servant/Lord relationship. God honored Jesus with the title Lord as His response to Jesus' obedient suffering (Phil. 2:6-11). He has been seated at the right hand of God, which demonstrates the elevation of Jesus to the position of Ruler next to God himself (ps.110:1). In the Old Testament, Lordusually describes the essence of Yahweh: His power over His people, over the entire earth, and over all gods. Lord could stand parallel to the personal name of God, Yahweh. Lord used in direct address to God attested to the honor of God or His representative (2 Samuel 7:18-22,28-29; Joshua 5:14; Zech. 4:4).

I will say it again....

Did you skip over this one.....One way to look at is.... Ontology is the study of reality. Ontology is supported by objectivism, thus has ability to be proven. For example, organizations in which we carry out data collections for our research exists in reality and can thus be proven.

And this one...Another to look at it is... Ontology is not itself reality; it is theory of, or words about, reality.

More....Ontology is the study of being, it tries to understand the reality.

Again......In sum....i agree with you.....can you not agree the we both agree...seems we do.

Of course not, thats a stupid thing to say.

I was meaning that there was a fairy tale started a while back that indicated that the world was about that old. It contained a whole bunch of other crazy ass shit too, including some events in the area and timeframe that you mention.

Really? So god created everything real but can't provide any real evidence to prove it? That's strange, from what everyone claims about him/her/it, he/she/it should have no problem doing so.

What served as the foundation of faith for the first-century church…? What was their view, and how did they begin to understand the old testament regarding Jesus’ life and death and resurrection…? Should we take our cues about the foundation of the faith, and should we take our cues about how to approach the old testament from the very people who were closest to the action ~ the first-century, first followers of Jesus…?

And if we take our cues from them, and if other’s take their cues from them…especially the next generation…if our loved ones take their cues from this group ~ then it makes sense that we’ll all end up with the supportable, defendable, conclusive version of Christianity, which was the original version.

So what was the foundation of Peter’s faith…? Where did Peter get his hope…? Where did Peter get his boldness…? Where did he get his confidence…? How is it he’s out walking around in the open…proclaiming Jesus to the very people who had Him killed…whereas before he was afraid and ran for his life…?

The foundation of their faith wasn’t something they read or had read to them. The foundation of their faith was what they’d seen. So for Christians, what should be the foundation of their faith…? What should be the epicenter of their confidence…?

Peter would say “that’s easy…the resurrection”…!

This is how the message of Jesus survived the Jewish Temple and the Roman Empire. And remember that the first persecution of Christians was from the Jewish Temple, it wasn’t from Rome. This is how Christianity survived the first, second, third, and the beginning of the fourth century.

The first-century followers of Jesus embraced what all Christians oughta embrace: they embraced the stand-alone version of Christianity. They didn’t need a book to prop up their faith. They didn’t need creation explained to them to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the story of Noah, or the story of Jonah to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the Law of Moses to prop up their faith. Christianity stood on its own two nail-scarred, resurrection, first-century feet. It did then, and it does now.

The foundation of Christianity is not a book, it is an event. A book did not create Christianity; Christians eventually created the Christian Bible. The old testament is at the front of the Christian Bible, but it should be at the back of the Christian apologetic. If we were to ask Peter “where’s the foundation”, “where do you find your hope”, “where do you find your courage…?”, he sure as heck wouldn’t quote a verse from the old testament.

Do you get this worked up about everything that you can’t define through empirical data?

Maybe you could give us empirical evidence of your existence.

I live in the real world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I respond on forum threads, therefore I am.

Nobody argues over the existence of the sun, moon, stars, oceans, rivers, plants, animals, etc, yet debates over things supernatural are endless .....now, I wonder why that is?

I'm guessing you are saying the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb proved he was who he claimed to be? And that his teachings were the truth from God? As would have the miracles he performed during his ministry?

I think that is because Atheists, Agnostics, and Believers in a super natural power have no real explanation of where all this matter and energy originated other than we now know there was a beginning eons ago and there is no rational explanation other than a super natural power.

Everything you mentioned can be seen and in some cases touched. But I can't get a satisfactory explanation of how it is possible for everything in the universe to be pulled into a tiny bit of matter smaller than an atom and then in a great cataclysmic explosion create the seemingly endless universe that we can see only a small part of. On top of that I would have to believe even in billions of years life as we know it evolved to where it is now. I can believe in adaptive evolution but I'm not up to believing a fungus, a virus, a one cell organism eventually became a tree, a cow, or a man.I can believe the human/[bleep] common ancestor or the various equine species common origin but not the amoeba to fish to man theory.

So I would guess most people harbor a belief in the supernatural, and as to this thread I personally believe the supernatural power of the universe sent his messenger Jesus just as he sent the previous prophets and messengers that were never well received.

There is a lot I don't understand and I certainly can't quite get a God with the power to stop it allowing mankind to run amok but it will all make sense by and by.

That is not rational at all. We don't know, can't say we know it was magic.
.

How about this, it is a power we cannot understand?

I'd just say we don't know. "A Power" implies a singular entity of some sort - may not be correct.

Energy/matter may have always been there, just like a god. Our universe had a start, but it just be part of an infinite cycle, up for ideas.

Saying we don't know is the honest answer. Any labelling is part and parcel of hypothesising.