Karl Popper on Religion

[Eric the Green]

(03-01-2017, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I reckon any church that allows in gays (without trying "conversion therapy"), allows women with feminist sensibilities to be pastors, or, has socioeconomic inequality concerns, it is one of the supposedly non-Christian churches, according to Radind?

Radind does not seem to understand his mistake. A "Biblical worldview" is not what Mr. Barna says it is. Or even what Radind says it is. Or anyone else, for that matter.

[Odin]

(03-01-2017, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I reckon any church that allows in gays (without trying "conversion therapy"), allows women with feminist sensibilities to be pastors, or, has socioeconomic inequality concerns, it one of the supposedly non-Christian churches, according to Radind?

Biblical literalism is an invention of the American South in the Missionary 2T, the term "fundamentalism" comes from a book called The Fundamentals published in the 1890s. That's what I find so ridiculous about so much discussion about religion both by the Christian Right and the "New Atheist" types, especially when the later seem to reduce all religion to American Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestantism.

[radind]

(03-01-2017, 09:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I reckon any church that allows in gays (without trying "conversion therapy"), allows women with feminist sensibilities to be pastors, or, has socioeconomic inequality concerns, it is one of the supposedly non-Christian churches, according to Radind?

Radind does not seem to understand his mistake. A "Biblical worldview" is not what Mr. Barna says it is. Or even what Radind says it is. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Barna's treatment of Biblical worldview is the best that I have seen. In my opinion, the USA has largely abandoned a Biblical worldview. 
I realize that we will never agree, just posted the update from Barna for information.

[Eric the Green]

(03-02-2017, 10:10 AM)radind Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 09:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I reckon any church that allows in gays (without trying "conversion therapy"), allows women with feminist sensibilities to be pastors, or, has socioeconomic inequality concerns, it is one of the supposedly non-Christian churches, according to Radind?

Radind does not seem to understand his mistake. A "Biblical worldview" is not what Mr. Barna says it is. Or even what Radind says it is. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Barna's treatment of Biblical worldview is the best that I have seen. In my opinion, the USA has largely abandoned a Biblical worldview. 
I realize that we will never agree, just posted the update from Barna for information.

That's right; it's YOUR opinion; and about what YOU have seen.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-02-2017, 07:58 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I reckon any church that allows in gays (without trying "conversion therapy"), allows women with feminist sensibilities to be pastors, or, has socioeconomic inequality concerns, it one of the supposedly non-Christian churches, according to Radind?

Biblical literalism is an invention of the American South in the Missionary 2T, the term "fundamentalism" comes from a book called The Fundamentals published in the 1890s. That's what I find so ridiculous about so much discussion about religion both by the Christian Right and the "New Atheist" types, especially when the later seem to reduce all religion to American Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestantism.

Yes indeed.  While Prophet generations can tune into hidden issues, they unfortunately leave behind bogus memes that make a mess.

[Mikebert]

(03-02-2017, 07:58 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I reckon any church that allows in gays (without trying "conversion therapy"), allows women with feminist sensibilities to be pastors, or, has socioeconomic inequality concerns, it one of the supposedly non-Christian churches, according to Radind?

Biblical literalism is an invention of the American South in the Missionary 2T, the term "fundamentalism" comes from a book called The Fundamentals published in the 1890s. That's what I find so ridiculous about so much discussion about religion both by the Christian Right and the "New Atheist" types, especially when the later seem to reduce all religion to American Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestantism.

The Fundamentals were published in 1910-1915.  This is part of the reason I see the 2T as later than the S&H dates.  Fundamentalism is a hugely important American religious development and should not be exclusively a 3T phenomenon IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals

[Mikebert]

(03-01-2017, 06:27 PM)radind Wrote: Update on worldview survey.

Quote:Survey Finds Just 10 Percent Of Americans Have A Biblical Worldview
http://www.westernjournalism.com/survey-...worldview/
… "A new survey released Monday revealed just 10 percent of Americans truly have a biblical worldview, despite four times that amount believing that they do.
The American Culture and Faith Institute, headed by pollster George Barna, interviewed approximately 6,000 people from the general population and in church leadership in early February.”…

I question for Radind.

Do you believe there is an orthodoxy (right teaching) for Christianity?  If so, what is the source of this right teaching? 

If you say Scripture, then why is Scripture to be elevated over other writings of men?

If you say because Scripture is the Word of God, then let's cut to the chase and just asset:

Orthodoxy is the Word of God as written by the Hand of God.

Now if you were an orthodox Muslim you would accept the Koran as Orthodoxy since the God worked indirectly, through human agents (God dictated the Koran to Mohammed in dreams, that in waking hours he recited and which followed wrote down) to record his Word as Scripture.

But for Christians, there was no need of indirect means.  Jesus of Nazareth is God and literally walked the Earth in the flesh as a living man.  Thus, orthodox Christianity would come from the writings of Jesus, that is literally for th Hand of God Himself.  You cannot get a higher authority than that.


Yet Christians are quite sure than Jesus did not do that.  Now if Jesus intended Christians to have orthodox teachings, he would have written them (He's God after all what He wills is done).  The only rational explanation for the fact that Jesus did not write any orthodox Scripture is that God did not intend Christians to have one.  That is. He wanted Christians to figure things out for themselves, to grow up in the faith.

Have you encountered this concept before?