Ask an Evangelical Christian

[Save_Ferris]

This question my be a tad blunt, but what do you think of Catholicism?

 

[_random_]

The saints refers to those who will eventually go to Heaven, its not the same as they are in the Catholic/Orthodox tradition. If you are genuinely saved, you are a saint.

Most Catholics and Orthodox would say something similar to that. The purpose of keeping a canon of saints isn't to list the entire company of heaven, but to honor particularly pious individuals who can serve as an example to us. I get dropping formal glorification as an element of Sola Scriptura, but not even acknowledging biblical figures like St. Paul and St. John the Forerunner strikes me as odd.

Titles aside, do you believe it's acceptable to refer to St. Mary as the Mother of God?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

3. Scientific debate on the accuracy of the Bible. Again, not necessary, and off topic.

I hope I'm allowed to ask a personal philosophical question about the historical accuracy of the Bible. If you feel it inappropriate or against the gist of the thread, I apologize and ignore the heck out of me (<-non smug friendly smilie)

Apart from Jesus existing obviously, does it matter to you how accurate the Bible is? Would it make a difference to your faith whether Moses or Noah existed or not?

edit: Only read the OP, but I see this issue has been brought up already. I'd like to stress that I don't want to go into why you believe it's accurate, or how you determined it, I want to hear your take on the significance of historical accuracy from a spiritual viewpoint. And again, I can imagine you don't want to go into any of that, so ignore me at will.

 

[holy king]

why do you think your church has more authority regarding the word of jesus and god than the catholic church who is the church directly founded by one of jesus' disciples on the order of jesus himself?

why would anyone but the bishop of rome have the authority to interpret the word of god?

 

[NovaKart]

why do you think your church has more authority regarding the word of jesus and god than the catholic church who is the church directly founded by one of jesus' disciples on the order of jesus himself?

why would anyone but the bishop of rome have the authority to interpret the word of god?

I think I can answer that one, Protestants don't believe in the 2nd part of that sentence and typically think it's dangerous to invest that much authority in one man.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think I can answer that one, Protestants don't believe in the 2nd part of that sentence and typically think it's dangerous to invest that much authority in one man.

Like Jesus?

 

[NovaKart]

Well Christians believe that Jesus wasn't just a man. Regardless, when someone like Rodrigo Borgia comes along it's best not to give that person the authority to speak for God. Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on this matter because this thread is NOT a Protestant vs Catholic debate and I have nothing against Catholicism, only when Catholics try to insist that theirs the superior church. Most Catholics I know never do that fortunately.

 

[uppi]

I would say Traditional Evolution is a slippery slope though, since it essentially says man is an animal. I'd still say its possible, but it is a bit slippery.

Do you know where the following passage is from, or have you ever read it?

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals;

Unrelated to that: Why do you give a definition of Evangelicals that only includes the more fundamentalists branches of Evangelicalism? Do you know that the term Evangelicals is used for a broad spectrum and that your definition excludes some parts of that?

 

[timtofly]

I hope I'm allowed to ask a personal philosophical question about the historical accuracy of the Bible. If you feel it inappropriate or against the gist of the thread, I apologize and ignore the heck out of me (<-non smug friendly smilie)

Apart from Jesus existing obviously, does it matter to you how accurate the Bible is? Would it make a difference to your faith whether Moses or Noah existed or not?

edit: Only read the OP, but I see this issue has been brought up already. I'd like to stress that I don't want to go into why you believe it's accurate, or how you determined it, I want to hear your take on the significance of historical accuracy from a spiritual viewpoint. And again, I can imagine you don't want to go into any of that, so ignore me at will.

If Jesus and his followers and even opposers talked about Moses and Noah as if they were historical humans, would that logically infer that the Bible is ok in treating them as Historical humans? It isn't that just the NT writers referred to them, but accepted authors before and after them mentioned them also. It seems to me, that it was not until the Theologians tried to scientifically and logically explain the Bible, that a refutation was needed. If the people living centuries before Jesus and even centuries after Jesus did not have issues, then why are we going with more modern reconciliations? I could be wrong, I just have not seen enough evidence to the contrary. In 2 thousand years, one may say that Stalin was a forgery because he quotes Karl Marx, who was a figure of communist theory.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not what I asked. Not getting into that.

 

[History_Buff]

The first question skirts the rules of the thread, but I'm not trying to create a political argument about any particular issue, so here goes. Also, I haven't read the first thread, so forgive me if I'm covering old material.


If you accept the Bible as inerrant, do you think it is morally acceptable, or even desirable, to legislate the laws of your god as found in the bible? Homosexual marriage and abortion are the popular two of course, but this extends to more mundane topics as well, such as tithing, dietary preference, observance of the sabbath, etc.


Aside from the Bible and personal experience, do you believe there is any evidence for the god presented by the Bible?



What's your position on the Old Testament? Given your views on Creationism, I'd say you believe these gods are one and the same? Are the laws as given in the old testament still valid? Similarly, are there any religious texts you identify as divine that are not part of the modern bible?

 

[PeteAtoms]

What is an Evangelical's role on Earth? What is your duty (if you have one) to your fellow man? How involved with the spiritual lives of others is an Evangelical supposed to be? Actively seeking to spread the faith through missionary work, passively entertaining potential converts, taking over the world, etc?

How should Evangelicals handle conflicting ideologies that affect their lives?

What do you think about those mega-churches? They seem like little more than Earthly shrines to wealth and excess, to be quite honest. Is there a point to them being so large and gaudy? What would Jesus say about it?

 

[timtofly]

Do you know where the following passage is from, or have you ever read it?

Spoiler :

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals;

It could be the bitterness of the wisest man married to 1000 women.

Ecclesiastes 3:11-22

Spoiler :

11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

12I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

13And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

14I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

15That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

16And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

17I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

22Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

God has the power to take life and give life. I see no evidence that men are mere animals, but without God, they are no better than the beast of the field. There is a distinction in verse 22, where the spirit goes, and man's goes upward and the beast's goes downward to the earth.

 

[NovaKart]

About speaking in tongues, I think a lot of people who speak in tongues are not really lying but they just have convinced themselves that the Holy Spirit has entered them and they start speaking gibberish.

 

[timtofly]

Apart from Jesus existing obviously, does it matter to you how accurate the Bible is? Would it make a difference to your faith whether Moses or Noah existed or not?

Not what I asked. Not getting into that.

Ok, then if I had an answer it would be: Yes, I would not trust a God who lied. No, it would not make a difference, but it would not make logical sense if they had not existed, due to my first answer.

Abraham obeyed God, without asking did Noah really exist. I doubt it would have made a difference if God told Abraham, that Noah did exist.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

My view would be that the Old Testament is valid, but that the commandments found therein were only ever applicable to those to whom they were addressed. The Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law of Moses are pretty clearly addressed not to humanity as a whole, but only to the children of Israel, those led out of Egypt and their descendents (and guests in their households). I would tend to agree with Orthodox Jews that gentiles need not concern themselves with the 10 commandments of the rest of the 613 mitzvah but rather just the 7 Noahide Laws. We should also keep in mind that even those are to be taken as mere commentary on the commandments to love God and love our neighbors. Keeping the law is a means of expressing our love for the Creator, and has no value beyond that.

The seventh Noahide laws calls for establishing a just legal system. We can take inspiration from parts of the Law of Moses, but should not apply it blindly. We need to use our God-given gift of reason to decide on what laws are best suited to meet the needs of the societies in which we live. No law can be just unless it can be enforced efficiently without creating further injustices.


(I don't see much need for the state to be involved with marriage in the first place. Individuals should be free to make whatever private contracts they want.)

Abortion is most certainly condemned. The Didache is particularly explicit about that. The state does have a role in prosecuting murder. It may be too hard to enforce early in the pregnancy, but not by the third trimester.

The bible actually calls for 3 different tithes, but they are only applied to the first fruits of agricultural production, not to income wherever derived. They could actually be considered a form a geoist taxation, in which those monopolizing Land must pay compensation to those who were denied access to such resources.

While we may very well be healthier if we did keep kosher, there is no need for that. There are however some dietary restrictions incumbent upon all of humanity. We must not eat blood, or portions of meat cut off from an animal while still alive, or meat from an animal killed in a needlessly cruel method such as strangling. However, beyond basic laws prohibiting cruelty to animals and the proper labeling of food products, this is probably too much trouble to enforce.

It is good to take take a day off work to rest once in a while, but it needn't strictly observe the sabbath. Singapore might be justified in encouraging (maybe even requiring) employers to give their maids one day off per week, but none of the Blue Laws limiting what can be done on Sundays are at all acceptable.)


I'm not sure I;d consider them "divine," but I do quite like the books of Baruch, Sirach, and Wisdom from the Aprocrapha. I would also accept the Didache, although caution against taking its suggested practices as commands to follow legalistically. (This may disqualify me from answering on account of the OP's first point, but I am not inclined to accept the most likely forged Epistles of Second Peter or Jude.)

 

[uppi]

It could be the bitterness of the wisest man married to 1000 women.

But it is a part of the Bible. So if you believe the whole Bible to be inerrant and infallible (which you must to be an OP-defined Evangelical) then even the bitter words of the main speaker of Ecclesiastes have to be infallible and inerrant, as there is no indication in the text that his words are untrue (and Ecclesiastes 12 claims that he wrote words of truth).

You cannot dismiss a text because you don't like its content or because you believe the author to be bitter without any textual evidence that the author itself disapproves of the content (e.g. the words of what the Bible calls a false prophet are not to be taken true). But as this is not the case here, the Bible literally says, men are animals.

God has the power to take life and give life. I see no evidence that men are mere animals, but without God, they are no better than the beast of the field. There is a distinction in verse 22, where the spirit goes, and man's goes upward and the beast's goes downward to the earth.

That's not what verse 21 says. The text in not totally outdated English reads (NRSV):

Who knows whether the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth?

So instead of claiming that the human spirit indeed goes upwards and the animals' spirit goes downward, it actually claims that no human knows that. Thus it actually casts doubt on that belief instead of stating it. In the eyes of Ecclesiastes this is certainly not a clear distinction.

So the belief that humans are animals is a view that is expressed in the Bible without any explicit disapproval. So from a Biblical point of view it is a rather poor argument for the religious rejection of Evolution.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Of course humans are animals. The bible is pretty clear that we are. The Hebrew word generally translated soul (or living soul) is Nepesh, which often refers to lesser animals but never to anything without a physical body. The bible never claims we have immortal souls (only that the mortal can put on immortality, as Christ offers the gift of Eonian Life). The bible is clear on The Bodily Resurrection, which makes the concept of immortal souls seem rather superfluous (although that doesn't rule the possibility out completely). Both epistles of Timothy claim only god has immortality.
Also, the very word Animal is from the Latin meaning "thing with a soul."

 

[timtofly]

But it is a part of the Bible. So if you believe the whole Bible to be inerrant and infallible (which you must to be an OP-defined Evangelical) then even the bitter words of the main speaker of Ecclesiastes have to be infallible and inerrant, as there is no indication in the text that his words are untrue (and Ecclesiastes 12 claims that he wrote words of truth).

You cannot dismiss a text because you don't like its content or because you believe the author to be bitter without any textual evidence that the author itself disapproves of the content (e.g. the words of what the Bible calls a false prophet are not to be taken true). But as this is not the case here, the Bible literally says, men are animals.



That's not what verse 21 says. The text in not totally outdated English reads (NRSV):


So instead of claiming that the human spirit indeed goes upwards and the animals' spirit goes downward, it actually claims that no human knows that. Thus it actually casts doubt on that belief instead of stating it. In the eyes of Ecclesiastes this is certainly not a clear distinction.

So the belief that humans are animals is a view that is expressed in the Bible without any explicit disapproval. So from a Biblical point of view it is a rather poor argument for the religious rejection of Evolution.

Seeing that you left God out of your definition, or even interpretation, does that mean to you He does not exist? God allowed the king of babylon to "become" a beast of the field. Failing to point out the fact that God is involved in the passage, one would conclude that. God knows where the spirit goes and unless He is manifested in human spirit, then that will go downwards also. Without God we are animals.

 

[civ_king]

Do you believe in the Rapture?
If so are you pre post or mid tribulation?

What's up with the Song of Solomon?

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?
If so, why do you believe in it even though the Bible never says anything along the lines of that?

What is going on in Matthew 23:2&#8211;3?