My beef with evangelicals

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Easy. They simply don't accept the authority paradigm. That paradigm only exits in Chatholicism and Mormonism. Just because you take it for granted doesn't mean everyone else thinks it makes perfect sense. It's just a belief, dogma, like all the rest of it. Just because you or others who believe it believe it doesn't make it so for everyone. It's what you believe, so it's so for you; they believe something else, so it's not so for them. You each have your own distinct truth. And please don't cite the Bible to me as support for your belief.

Well, I'd like a non-believer's take on this.

If you are stating that some sacrament or ordinance is necessary, how does one come by the authority necessary to perform the ordinance?

For example, if I determine that an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington is necessary to enforce in Seattle, I can't claim to be the District Court Judge just because I went to law school or just because I decided it would be a good idea.

Apostolic lineage is a rational course of dealing. Now whether it exists or continued to exist is a logical argument.

However, I don't even understand the paradigm that it is necessary to be baptized and to receive the sacramental ordinance. An ordinance requires authority? By definition it does.

I have never understood the answer to that question. I've heard, but still stand there scratching my head.

I can understand a paradigm that says God doesn't need ordinances and neither do we. But once you state an ordinance is necessary, then the logical question is who must perform it?

The Baptists have never given a logical explanation. And no I don't need a scriptural argument.

[MikeWaters]

I think they would argue that where a couple of believers are gathered, God is with them, as is the authority.

While we have an idea of authority, I don't know that it is spelled out that way in the New Testament.

So I don't really follow that our logic is really logic. It's just *a* way that to me isn't anymore particularly inducive of faith than then Baptist way.

And that is why people rarely "logic" themselves into the church.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think they would argue that where a couple of believers are gathered, God is with them, as is the authority.

While we have an idea of authority, I don't know that it is spelled out that way in the New Testament.

So I don't really follow that our logic is really logic. It's just *a* way that to me isn't anymore particularly inducive of faith than then Baptist way.

And that is why people rarely "logic" themselves into the church.

And that answer always perplexed me. A couple of believers get together, now you can say you are authorized to act on behalf of God of the Universe.

Nothing I know ever works that way.

If you were a subject of England and you wanted to do something on behalf of the King, you needed his imprimatur.

How a believer suddenly acquires authority by believing makes no sense to me.

To which the Evangelical will respond, you just gotta have faith. And ponzis are legitimate investment vehicles as well.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, I'd like a non-believer's take on this.

If you are stating that some sacrament or ordinance is necessary, how does one come by the authority necessary to perform the ordinance?

For example, if I determine that an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington is necessary to enforce in Seattle, I can't claim to be the District Court Judge just because I went to law school or just because I decided it would be a good idea.

Apostolic lineage is a rational course of dealing. Now whether it exists or continued to exist is a logical argument.

However, I don't even understand the paradigm that it is necessary to be baptized and to receive the sacramental ordinance. An ordinance requires authority? By definition it does.

I have never understood the answer to that question. I've heard, but still stand there scratching my head.

I can understand a paradigm that says God doesn't need ordinances and neither do we. But once you state an ordinance is necessary, then the logical question is who must perform it?

The Baptists have never given a logical explanation. And no I don't need a scriptural argument.

You don't need to condescend to these quaint analogies with me. I'm aware of them and have used them in the distant past.

What you are saying is no different than saying how do Jews and Budhists explain the absence of a mechanism for atonement in their respective cosmologies?

Like all successful religions, and good science fiction novels, the evangelical creed is possessed of an internal (emphasis on internal) coherance and rationality.

I judge religions by only one standard: whether and to what extent the religion has been instrumental in enhancing the well being of its adherants in a variety of important respects.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You don't need to condescend to these quaint analogies with me. I'm aware of them and have used them in the distant past.

Don't get huffy, you're the one who didn't want scripture, which I am not wont to quote to a better term now, a "disbeliever" taken from the Qur'an.

Externally, I don't understand evangelicals.


The concept of authority is inherent in much of western society, so with baptists bucking the trend, it's almost an eastern philosophy invasion.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What you are saying is no different than saying how do Jews and Budhists explain the absence of a mechanism for atonement in their respective cosmologies?

Well, Jews do have the concept of atonement, hence the day of atonement, or Yom Kippur. I've forgotten Buddhism, but in many respects it's not a religion, but a way.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Like all successful religions, and good science fiction novels, the evangelical creed is possessed of an internal (emphasis on internal) coherance and rationality.

I judge religions by only one standard: whether and to what extent the religion has been instrumental in enhancing the well being of its adherants in a variety of important respects.

That is a reasonable standard, and I can't tell whether the lives of evangelicals is made better by their religion.

[Archaea]

In short, evangelicals don't answer any of the great questions, metaphysical, moral or otherwise.

http://www.stanford.edu/~strum/cours..._1999_news.pdf

This looks like a great class.

http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/pr...istByTitle.htm

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In short, evangelicals don't answer any of the great questions, metaphysical, moral or otherwise.

http://www.stanford.edu/~strum/cours..._1999_news.pdf

This looks like a great class.

http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/pr...istByTitle.htm

My sister in law is Born Again so we've had plenty of opportunities to discuss differences in our beliefs. She has finally settled down where it isn't a fight, but an actual exchange of ideas.

The sense I get from her and others I have come into contact with is that their belief system is the only prism through which they view the world. It's a pretty restrictive prism, hence I don't think they have the capacity to come at an issue or problem any other way. Aside from issue-driven movements (abortion or gay marriage for example), I don't think they involve themselves that much with politics. Sure, the Republican Party can mobilize them at election time over these issues, but I don't see much discourse beyond that.

I was shocked when talking with my sister-in-law about possible job postings and when Saudi Arabia came up, her response was, "That's a godless nation!" In other words, our god is god and there is only one way to worship him. All else is folly.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think they would argue that where a couple of believers are gathered, God is with them, as is the authority.

While we have an idea of authority, I don't know that it is spelled out that way in the New Testament.

So I don't really follow that our logic is really logic. It's just *a* way that to me isn't anymore particularly inducive of faith than then Baptist way.

And that is why people rarely "logic" themselves into the church.

Exactly.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

My sister in law is Born Again so we've had plenty of opportunities to discuss differences in our beliefs. She has finally settled down where it isn't a fight, but an actual exchange of ideas.

The sense I get from her and others I have come into contact with is that their belief system is the only prism through which they view the world. It's a pretty restrictive prism, hence I don't think they have the capacity to come at an issue or problem any other way. Aside from issue-driven movements (abortion or gay marriage for example), I don't think they involve themselves that much with politics. Sure, the Republican Party can mobilize them at election time over these issues, but I don't see much discourse beyond that.

I was shocked when talking with my sister-in-law about possible job postings and when Saudi Arabia came up, her response was, "That's a godless nation!" In other words, our god is god and there is only one way to worship him. All else is folly.

I thought Mormons were like that. Wow; much HAS changed.