Is Santorum destroying Christianity?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I think Genesis is communicating certain doctrinal truths associated with an understanding of the spiritual realm exclusively; the author(s) having no intention to make any claims about physical reality (the domain of science). The same with Noah's flood. There's no physical evidence that a world-wide flood occurred within the last 70,000-100,00 ...[text shortened]... ble, because it is suited to an entirely different understanding of the world (the spiritual).

For one thing the Earth has not existed for 70,000-100,000 years. And there
is evidence of flood all over the world. I think any reasonable person would
say, "If it is all over the world, it is world-wide." 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
Like I have always said, the name christianity is a misnomer, it by rights should be called Paulism.

My view exactly, which I defended in a lengthy exchange on an earlier thread.

Originally posted by JS357
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.

I didn't say Paul was consistent, though arguably he probably is. He developed a very tightly argued, indeed brilliant, interpretation of Jesus and worked hard to make this the basis for a new religion, which is a huge (albeit entirely human) achievement.

What I did say was that he is consistently referred to as the source of this religion.

Obviously, if one wishes to approach this matter as an atheist, one must nevertheless accommodate the facts (as far as they are available to us) of history and the reality of human nature, including religious experience and the history of religion. This religion evidently does exist and it is what it is and this has to be accounted for, as does the existence of so many alternative religions, some of which have prospered and others faded, while many common elements are weaved through the history of religion in countless permutations.

For example, the Spanish Conquistadores were appalled by the prevalence of human sacrifice among the Aztecs, which was central to their religion (though the Aztecs were themselves only one group among many and had a brief period of dominance which happened to coincide with the Spanish invasion). In order to eradicate such horrible beliefs, their preferred method was to burn alive the heretics they encountered and it is possible that more people were burned and tortured by the Christians in the name of their religion than by the Aztecs in the name of theirs. Whatever the numbers it is hard to distinguish the two religions on any moral or ethical criterion regarding human life and it is apparent that they both relished human sacrifice to their respective versions of God. Indeed, for a long time the Auto Da Fe was a feature of life in the Spanish world, new and old. Of course the way Christianty was spread did vary. The way the Franks converted Saxony is not quite the way the English or the Portugese converted Africans.

So it is quite important, I think, to understand the origins of Christianity and the way it has developed over time while taking into account the similarities and common threads with alternative religions.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so basicaly, what you are saying is that the grand poobah of christianity should remove santorum from the equation and form a better PR office in order to trick people into christianity?



the message of christianity is quite clear, if you don't understand that santorum is not speaking for it, you probably wouldn't follow christianity anyway. someone ...[text shortened]... t be offended by santorum. in fact nobody should be offended by what a retarded zealot says

It is not about christians being offended or not offended by Santorum. Instead, it is that Santorum's base and his strongest supporters are christian evangelicals, some of the most christian faithful and christ-loving people in the world.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is well documented that "the nones" (people with no religious affiliation) are the fastest growing segment of the population. They're around 16% of the population and rising. When people like Santorum get on the campaign trail and spew their bile, it further alienates large segments of the population, who are horrified at his medieval notions. The hard c like Santorum continue to be the face of Christianity, I think this process is inevitable.

I agree withi your point. And Santorum extremism does hurt christianity.

The "nones" are definitely on the rise, and christianity will likely decline because of their extremism and because of increasing sanity by others, but especially when considering the upcoming changes in world population demographics. Indeed, Islam is on the rise big time, and dwarfs both the "nones" and christians, and will so for centuries with no end in sight. Yet, let's hope that all at some point in the future to religious superstition of all kinds.

Originally posted by moon1969
I agree withi your point. And Santorum extremism does hurt christianity.

The "nones" are definitely on the rise, and christianity will likely decline because of their extremism and because of increasing sanity by others, but especially when considering the upcoming changes in world population demographics. Indeed, Islam is on the rise big time, and dwa ...[text shortened]... et, let's hope that all at some point in the future to religious superstition of all kinds.

ah, but wait. is christianity on the decline because of christian extremism or is christian extremism on the rise because of christian decline?

Originally posted by vistesd
Not really; but there may be people on the margins of more “fundamentalistic” churches who will move to ones that are less so (e.g., Episcopal, ELCA Lutheran—just to cite two “mainstream” churches that I am familiar with); some Roman Catholics may move to the Episcopal Church (as did, e.g., Matthew Fox many years ago), or even to the Greek Orthodox (althou ...[text shortened]... maybe Paul Tillich; maybe Kallistos Ware in the Orthodox Church, and probably Olivier Clement).

I'm afraid I don't quite grasp your point here.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm afraid I don't quite grasp your point here.

😳 There are sufficient moves within Christianity—in this case, from more dogmatic, fundamentalistic and such to less dogmatic, etc., forms—that I wouldn’t predict any wholesale move from Christianity per se to “none”. There are also likely continued movements to such expressions as Zen and Taoism—and there is always some such movement and counter-movement going on. I would see the movement toward “none” to be more of a long-run, evolutionary phenomenon.

I think the idea that a Santorum will drive a significant number of Christians all the way to “none” is probably too simplistic. For example, some Roman Catholics who can no longer express their spirituality under the dogmatic umbrella of the RCC may well move to the Anglican/Episcopalian church.

Originally posted by vistesd
😳 There are sufficient moves within Christianity—in this case, from more dogmatic, fundamentalistic and such to less dogmatic, etc., forms—that I wouldn’t predict any wholesale move from Christianity per se to “none”. There are also likely continued movements to such expressions as Zen and Taoism—and there is always some such movement and counter-movement ...[text shortened]... uality under the dogmatic umbrella of the RCC may well move to the Anglican/Episcopalian church.

I don't see it happening that way. The 'liberal' denominations have been losing members. Christianity is moving more and more toward being a religion of evangelical extremists. And the further they lurch toward that extreme, the less appeal they'll have for mainstream society, which will have the effect of pushing them even further to the extreme and thereby hastening their own marginalization (if not their ultimate demise).

Originally posted by moon1969
I agree withi your point. And Santorum extremism does hurt christianity.

The "nones" are definitely on the rise, and christianity will likely decline because of their extremism and because of increasing sanity by others, but especially when considering the upcoming changes in world population demographics. Indeed, Islam is on the rise big time, and dwa ...[text shortened]... et, let's hope that all at some point in the future to religious superstition of all kinds.

Sure, just like it hurt Christianity when Constatine jumped on the Christ wagon to further his political pursuits. Now when people bash Christianity, they begin with the influence of Constatine on the religion. Before that time, Christians were a harmless peaceful group who were thrown to the lions, but did not return fire.

Originally posted by whodey
Sure, just like it hurt Christianity when Constatine jumped on the Christ wagon to further his political pursuits. Now when people bash Christianity, they begin with the influence of Constatine on the religion. Before that time, Christians were a harmless peaceful group who were thrown to the lions, but did not return fire.

They made up for that later. Big time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
They made up for that later. Big time.

Nope, it just hurt the cause. After all, wihout the inquisitions and Crusades etc. there would be no ammo against the faith.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't see it happening that way. The 'liberal' denominations have been losing members. Christianity is moving more and more toward being a religion of evangelical extremists. And the further they lurch toward that extreme, the less appeal they'll have for mainstream society, which will have the effect of pushing them even further to the extreme and thereby hastening their own marginalization (if not their ultimate demise).

Do you see the "liberal" denominations as becoming, or having become, largely irrelevant? Beyond "salvation" by folks like Spong, Borg and others? Not arguing, just asking. (Interestingly, I think the Minnesota ELCA--Lutheran--just recently endorsed marriage equality.)

Originally posted by whodey
Nope, it just hurt the cause. After all, wihout the inquisitions and Crusades etc. there would be no ammo against the faith.

There would be a lot less faith too. Religion is most successful when assisted by politics and forceful conversion / maintenance.

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you see the "liberal" denominations as becoming, or having become, largely irrelevant? Beyond "salvation" by folks like Spong, Borg and others? Not arguing, just asking. (Interestingly, I think the Minnesota ELCA--Lutheran--just recently endorsed marriage equality.)

Unfortunately, people like Spong and Borg are a side show. I think Christianity is moving more in Santorum's direction than it is in theirs. At least for the foreseeable future.