Is Santorum destroying Christianity?

Originally posted by rwingett
You raise a couple good points. I don't see how scriptural literalism ever gained such a following, especially since the bible wasn't written for some 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death. The early Christian church was indeed quite a bit different from what today's evangelicals imagine it to have been.

I think you mean that the New Testament was written 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death.

Gary Habermas collected the views by scholars on this matter over the wide spectrum of attitudes. I mean he did not consult only evangelical scholars but modernist and theologically liberal ones as well. He kept count of the positions on dating.

Habermas says most scholars of the NT from different perusasions consider First Corinthians as authentically the writing of Paul. Paul's Corinthian letter #1 shows what was taught by predecessors of Paul. Most of them were still alive. And Paul said that he is teaching what these predecessors handed down themselves.

"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received ..."

In other words. "I'm a Johnny Come Lately at this. Before me others were saying this."

The crucial historical questions are:

1.) WHAT is it that they taught ?
2.) When was First Corinthians written.

Mind you, this has not to do with whether it was true or not, or whether we believe it or not. The historical point is WHAT did these predecessors believe PRIOR to Paul. What did THEY believe and what had THEY been teaching. And WHEN did Paul write refering to these predecessors' ?

Here's what THEY taught (whether it was true or not, THEY believed it )

"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day accoding to the Scriptures;

Next Paul refers to some people to whom the resurrected Christ appeared. At least THEY believed that and some were still ALIVE.

" ...He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures; And that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at tone time, of whom the majority remain until this day, but some have fallen asleep [died]; Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

Now that is what was the tradition already, when Paul wrote First Corinthians. Now when did he write it ?

For any interested The Historicity of the Resurrection - Gary Habermas

Just watch four minutes. It is a purely historical argument for the resurrection of Christ. What did the early Christians believe and when ?

YouTube

That's long enough for this post.

Originally posted by rwingett
The voice of extreme evangelicals, like Santorum, are by far the most vocal in today's climate. If the general public perceives him as being representative of Christianity, and are repelled by it, then Santorum is doing Christianity harm. The more mainstream voices may be alienated from an active participation in religion, which will have the effect of making Christianity an increasingly extreme religion that appeals to fewer and fewer people.

It sounds like you are fearful of something that would replace christianity, which is a misnomer anyway, it should be called Paulism. Are you afraid asssholes like santorum would cause christianity to be supplemented by atheism or maybe Islam?

Originally posted by sonhouse
It sounds like you are fearful of something that would replace christianity, which is a misnomer anyway, it should be called Paulism. Are you afraid asssholes like santorum would cause christianity to be supplemented by atheism or maybe Islam?

It is my contention that the more extreme, reactionary and exclusionary Christianity becomes, the more people will move away from it. I doubt many will move to Islam. Most seem to be moving toward a non-religious lifestyle, with a greater tolerance for diversity. Christianity seems to be more concerned with clinging to some imaginary past than with embracing the future. As such, it is dooming itself to obsolescence. Santorum represents all the factors which are pushing Christianity away from any relevance for life in the 21st century and hastening its ultimate demise.

I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. Underneath all the shopworn evangelical mythology, there is a core of material in Christianity that would be worth preserving. But the Santorums of the world prevent it from ever coming to light.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think you mean that the [b]New Testament was written 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death.

Gary Habermas collected the views by scholars on this matter over the wide spectrum of attitudes. I mean he did not consult only evangelical scholars but modernist and theologically liberal ones as well. He kept count of the positions on dating.

Habermas ...[text shortened]...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsrqFmEPUnw

That's long enough for this post.[/b]

Here is the beginning of Mr. Habermas' Wikipedia article:

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist...

End of story. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is my contention that the more extreme, reactionary and exclusionary Christianity becomes, the more people will move away from it. I doubt many will move to Islam. Most seem to be moving toward a non-religious lifestyle, with a greater tolerance for diversity. Christianity seems to be more concerned with clinging to some imaginary past than with embracin ...[text shortened]... ould be worth preserving. But the Santorums of the world prevent it from ever coming to light.

So it still sounds like you think the end of christianity, at least in the US, would lead to something even worse in most peoples' minds. Like using reason instead of faith. What a terrible fate that would be, eh.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So it still sounds like you think the end of christianity, at least in the US, would lead to something even worse in most peoples' minds. Like using reason instead of faith. What a terrible fate that would be, eh.

I honestly don't know where you came up with that.

Originally posted by rwingett
Here is the beginning of Mr. Habermas' Wikipedia article:

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist...

End of story. Thanks for playing.

Yep, end of story. You're too ignorant. End of story.

You are too biased to realize that his Evidentialist approach is NOT based on a belief in the sacred or revelelatory status of the Bible. But you would not verify that.

Anyway, Joseph Stalin put a lousy face on your beloved Socialism.

Originally posted by jaywill
Yep, end of story. You're too ignorant. End of story.

You are too biased to realize that his [b]Evidentialist approach is NOT based on a belief in the sacred or revelelatory status of the Bible. But you would not verify that.

Anyway, Joseph Stalin put a lousy face on your beloved Socialism.[/b]

It appears that we have nothing to say to one another, jaywill.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I think what Santorum represents definitely will have a long term detrimental affect on American Christianity at least. I don't think there is any doubt that Christian fundamentalism, because of its devotion to anti-intellectualism and its unprecedented, even radical insistence upon biblical literalism, will eventually go the way of the dodo.

...[text shortened]... theologically doomed, in my opinion, and long before Santorum had anything to do with it.

Devotion to anti-intellectualism? What exactly are you referring to Epi?

Are you saying that you don't believe in such stories as Noah's ark or Jesus healing and raising people from the dead or simply that you reject the notion that the earth is only thousands of years old?

As far as Santorum goes, however, he could very well be sincere in all that he says. All I know is that if anyone other than Ron Paul gets into office the US and Iran will soon be at war.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think you mean that the [b]New Testament was written 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death.

Gary Habermas collected the views by scholars on this matter over the wide spectrum of attitudes. I mean he did not consult only evangelical scholars but modernist and theologically liberal ones as well. He kept count of the positions on dating.

Habermas ...[text shortened]...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsrqFmEPUnw

That's long enough for this post.[/b]

yeah i watched the first five lectures, was quite interesting, eye witness testimony from
as early as +5 from Christ's death.

Originally posted by whodey
All I know is that if anyone other than Ron Paul gets into office the US and Iran will soon be at war.

This could happen whether or not Ron Paul gets elected.

War is good for business, after all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The only difference is most Christianity is seen as a harmless delusion, whereas Santorums seems to have some dangerous delusions.

At least if Santorum gets the nomination, we won't have to worry about any nutjob Republicant's getting into the White House.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
christianity didn't withstand the roman empire. it was wiped out by it.

Arguably it was the opposite - the empire was wiped out by Christianity.

e.g. "In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88), Edward Gibbon famously placed the blame on a loss of civic virtue among the Roman citizens. They gradually entrusted the role of defending the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on them. Gibbon held that Christianity contributed to this shift by making the populace less interested in the worldly here-and-now because it was willing to wait for the rewards of heaven. "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight," he wrote. "In discussing Barbarism and Christianity I have actually been discussing the Fall of Rome." "

Attracted as I am by this argument, I do realise it is more complicated. In particular, the Eastern Roman Empire persisted for a thousand years after the Western portion, though steadily eroded by the expansion of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

Conversely, the view that the Empire wiped out Christianity may refer to the role of the Emperor Constantine in first tolerating Christianity and then, through the Council of Nicea, insisting that it devise an agreed, consistent set of beliefs and in addition, adapt Christianity to a form that was compatible with the civil and military powers of the empire. From the outset, this meant that the winning side in that famous theological debate would have state support and significant wealth, in addition to accepting a role in the administration of the empire of that time, notably to maintain order. Not surprising that the Lord not only worked in mysterious ways at Nicea but also used bribery, violence and political trickery, his wonders to perform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[This includes a helpful explanation of protopaschites for your next general knowledge quiz, and the first new canon law which prohibited self castration (which if not prohibited would doubtless happen all the time). ]

However, this implies that all later Christians (and indeed most Christians throughout subsequent history) were inauthentic and presumably the victims of heretical, false beliefs. This is a sustainable line of argument if you want to claim there was a pure and authentic Christianity at an earlier date but of course there were a whole plethora of alternative cults which were famously in bitter rivalry with each other. [I have read Jawill's post on this point earlier]

It would be convenient to nominate Jesus as the authoritative source for Christianity but he wrote nothing and did not establish any new religion at all. What he said and how he said it has to be established through the accounts of others. The single most consistent source point for Christianity, in my opinion, is in the teachings of St Paul. A Christian probably takes Paul as a reliable source and he dominates the New Testament.

Originally posted by rwingett
It appears that we have nothing to say to one another, jaywill.

No sweat off my back if you have nothing to say.

Originally posted by finnegan
Arguably it was the opposite - the empire was wiped out by Christianity.

e.g. [i] "In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88), Edward Gibbon famously placed the blame on a loss of civic virtue among the Roman citizens. They gradually entrusted the role of defending the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on t ...[text shortened]... A Christian probably takes Paul as a reliable source and he dominates the New Testament.

"It would be convenient to nominate Jesus as the authoritative source for Christianity but he wrote nothing and did not establish any new religion at all. What he said and how he said it has to be established through the accounts of others. The single most consistent source point for Christianity, in my opinion, is in the teachings of St Paul. A Christian probably takes Paul as a reliable source and he dominates the New Testament."

If Paul is "consistent" and "reliable" as a source, then his pointing to Jesus has to be taken seriously.

So the next step would be to establish exactly what Paul said about their relative status.