It seems that young evangelicals are leaving the fold just like many of us exmo's. This article:
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-evangelicals-support-millennials-888267

We really ought to invite them over. The description of the consequences for leaving are strikingly similar to many of our stories.

HH =)

The article is simply dealing with a religious awareness of personal sin. As Rienhld Niebuhr said, "Original sin is the one Christian doctrine that is empirically provable." Or you can take the atheist view, that since there is no God, there is no sin, other than society's current cultural consensus.

Funny... I consider the exact same thing a "virtue."

HH =)

(from the second article)
"One witness described the scene as events at Cane Ridge reached their climax: “Sinners dropping down on every hand, shrieking, groaning, crying for mercy, convoluted. Professors [believers] praying, agonizing, fainting, falling down in distress for sinners, or in raptures of joy! Some singing, some shouting, clapping their hands, hugging and even kissing, laughing; others talking to the distressed, to one another, or to opposers of the work, and all this at once.”"

Can you say "mass hysteria?" I knew you could!

As for "original sin," it's not "empirically provable" in any way (since the entire concept is based on a demonstrably false myth). But the idea that we're "born sinners" and MUST have a "savior" is a good recruiting tool for those selling a savior.

I think I'll stick to determining if people are good or not by their actions, rather than some demonstrably false myth about how they were created "perfect," tempted by a talking snake, and made into sinners because they ate from a tree they weren't supposed to eat from, despite not having any knowledge of what was good or evil. Since none of that makes any sense whatsoever. :)

>
> I think I'll stick to determining if people are
> good or not by their actions,


So what actions are good? What is bad? Are you perfect in every area of your life at all times? I used to think the same way, then realized there are to many variables to make a determination who is good or who is bad? What about parts of people you don't see? Like someone who is charitable to others like the one who saw an angel who gave food to a homeless person on the other thread. Not saying that person is wrong or it wasn't a good thing to do, but let's just say that person is mean/temper/neglect/whatever to his/her children or other family members (random example), we would never see that side of the person, again not saying that is true or applies to that one or anyone specifically. But we all fall short/or have weaknesses in some areas.

Notelling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what actions are good? What is bad?

Things that help others (or yourself) without hurting others are good.
Things that harm others (or yourself) are bad.

> Are you
> perfect in every area of your life at all times?

Of course not. Never claimed I was.

> I used to think the same way, then realized there
> are to many variables to make a determination who
> is good or who is bad?

No there aren't. Not for me, anyway.
Since there is no objective "good and bad," you're free to come up with some other way to determine than I am.
Generally, though, it's whatever determinations a majority in a society comes up with that becomes "the standard," and often, law. So if your determination is way different than that, be prepared to have a hard time in your society.

> What about parts of people
> you don't see?

Why do I care what they do or don't do that doesn't harm other people?

> but let's just say that person is
> mean/temper/neglect/whatever to his/her children
> or other family members (random example), we would
> never see that side of the person...

There's no "perfect" system. But people who treat others like crap almost always get found out. Sometimes they don't, and get away with it. Oh, well. Nothing I can do about that. You either. We can only do what's possible.

Although I'm personally, uncomfortable with displays of ecstasy, they are not restricted to the religious sphere, but can be seen at rock concerts, New Age celebrations such as Woodstock or Burning Man, ancient and contemporary bacchanalia, and private events. The issue is, do people change for the better? I'm sure the answer varies widely. I admit to being embarrassed that the Christianity Today writer chose to use the Cane Ridge event as a template for revival, perfect for taking out of context to "prove" Christian irrationality.

The preaching of Charles Finney, the Wesleys, Dwight L Moody, Erik Prince, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and Billy Graham would have been more suitable examples. The gist of the article was the contrast between a fervently emotional and a temperate, contemplative experience of repentance and conversion. Mine was very much the latter (as you know, Hie). Both have their truths, and their drawbacks.

Without God, everything is ethically and culturally negotiable. What was wrong in the past is permissible now, and vice-versa. I maintain, without reservation, that original sin is a viable and constant truth: as we "advance" a species, so does our capacity for treachery, brutality, mass cruelty and murder, pride & selfishness, and all kinds of evil--that is, sin.

"Heretic" is now regarded as a pejorative term, with imagery of people being burned at the stake. It simply means "one who divides" or "departs." A separation of the saved from the lost is a core tenet of Christian faith. When somebody rejects that, and espouses something else, we have to say, "Sorry, you have wandered too far afield. You are not a Christian when you preach or teach that," just as we just tell people who believe "you can become a 'god' if you belong to our church" that they are too far afield to be deemed Christian.

Beliefnet is, of course, not a Christian site, but a forum for anything and everything religious, including those who are "too far afield," such as Bishop Pearson.

Oddly enough, Bishop Pearson considers himself a christian, and (likely) reasons that "mainstream christians" have gone "too far afield" to be real christians.

How about that.

I guess what is "christian," like what is "good" in a society, is a standard enforced by the majority of like-minded people at any one time...:)

Nowadays Mormons like to call themselves "Christian," as opposed to previous times when they rejected the term. Like Pearson, they believed orthodox Christians were in error, had gone "too far afield," i.e. apostate. So who's right--Christians, universalist Pearson, or hoping-to-be-'gods' Mormons?

Your position, Hie, is all three, and a whole bunch of others who hold that there is something larger, spiritual "out there." But as a Christian, I hold that in aiming for spiritual truth some people aim high, some aim low, and others left and right, hoping to come close to the true center--Christian truth. Others (LDS, Christian Science, Bishop Pearson, the friendly atheist next door) are simply completely off the target.

I'm talking doctrine, of course, knowing I'm right in some places and wrong in others, which I hope to correct as I study Scripture and grow. It is God who judges the heart--not Caffiend.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your position, Hie, is all three...

Well, almost.
My position is "none."

Since there's no way to determine who's "right" (or "wrong") about what a "true christian" is by evidence, nobody's right. It's a moving target, defined subjectively by whomever is in the majority at a certain place/time. It's been that way since the concept of christianity came about (however that happened).

Used to be that various majority groups would enforce their version by the sword (or gun or burning stake or prison or burning books...you get the idea). Once civil governments mostly stopped letting them do that, many tens of thousands of differing groups, all claiming to be "true christians," sprung up and proliferated. Every single one of them makes "biblical" arguments that other groups don't agree with. Not a one of them can prove they're "right." They can simply argue endlessly with no way to factually decide. It's madness, I say -- madness! :)

Not sure if it accounts for fully those falling away from evangelical churches but there is a trend among younger Christians to reject the established denominations of their parents for a simpler Jesus centered experience. Many new one-off churches are appearing as a result.

The evangelical church I drive by every day has an overflowing parking lot every Sunday....the LDS chapel 1/2 a mile west of it, not so much.

I thought Mormon Doctrine on salvation was pretty clear. Everyone gets salvation by Jesus atoning for Adam's sin.

Exaltation has to be earned.