I'm an evangelical Christian - ask me anything

[Insieme]

I'm happy to answer questions, though I'm not interested if people just come on to be insulting.

I can only give my views and talk about what I believe - evangelicalism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs and I can only speak for myself.

Ask away!

Would you have said this just 30/40 years ago?

Yes.

I'm going on holiday today, so I intend to leave this thread now, at least for the next couple of weeks. To be honest I didn't think we'd still be discussing three weeks on! Thank you to those who have asked questions - it's good to know people can engage (mostly) constructively, and I hope it's been helpful / interesting.

Maybe some of the other Christians on here might be around to pick up any questions I've missed? Thanks to all of them too for their great answers!

Have a lovely holiday!

OP, Do you think if you weren't a Christian you'd still be feel the same way about gay marriage/sex not being right?

Pro LGBT Christians: what makes you feel that gay sex marriage is okay now ? What about any sex outside marriage? Is that still not okay? If it is okay now why?

Pro LGBT Christians: what makes you feel that gay sex marriage is okay now?

I have always believed that same sex relationships should be treated equally.

What about any sex outside marriage? Is that still not okay? If it is okay now why?

This is another example of a teaching that was tied to a different time and cultural context. In biblical times people didn't live as long, got married and had children much younger, had no birth control or medical care, etc. Everyone needs to act responsibly regarding their sexual relationships but it is not as consequential as it once was. Do I think a 15 year old should be having sex? Of course not. An adult, unmarried couple, it's fine as long as it's consensual and done responsibly.

I, of course, speak only for myself, not for OP.

I have always believed that same sex relationships should be treated equally.

Why hasn't god do you think?

Why hasn't god do you think?

I dunno. Some odd things in the OT have some rationale. Not eating shellfish, for example, made sense because they spoil so quickly and can make you ill. Not wearing wool and other fibers together? No idea. I am not a Roman era Jew so I don't think the OT is the literal word of God. I think it's the traditional Jewish scriptures.

It mentions cattle and apparently God brought the beasts to Adam so he could name them, some Christians don't believe in dinosaurs presumably as they don't really fit into the timeline of events. And some Christians don't literally believe the creation story, Adam and Eve etc. I don't understand that because if you don't believe that part then it calls everything else into question?

Enjoy your holiday op.

And some Christians don't literally believe the creation story, Adam and Eve etc.

One underappreciated problem is the fact that most of us have to read the bible in English and not the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. "Adam" in Hebrew means man, and is used that way all over the NT texts. So it is quite reasonable to read Genesis as a story about the creation of mankind, not a particular bloke named Adam.

If I'm really curious about a particular passage I'll use this to compare translations

www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/

and there are other tools that show the English side by side with the original text with commentary.

The translation issue becomes particularly tricky when the original language has multiple words for something we have only one word for in English. Greek for example (and most of the NT texts come to us in Greek) has agápe, éros, philía, and storgē, all of which become "love" in English despite their very different meanings. I have learned a fair bit of Greek over the years for this reason and the rector of my church reads it like her mother tongue.

The "lost in translation" issue is one reason why it's very problematic to try to read the Bible literally.

What a fascinating thread. Good for you OP for putting yourself out there - v brave. Happy holidays.

dunno. Some odd things in the OT have some rationale.

It's not as if god just chilled out a bit having been a bit funny about gay sex. He wanted anyone having it to be killed. But now he's alright about it. Does that seem moral to you? What about the people that were stoned in the OT times. Who god wouldn't mind about now?

if god just chilled out a bit having been a bit funny about gay sex.

I am not a Roman era Jew so I don't think the OT is the literal word of God. I think it's the traditional Jewish scriptures.

Jesus quoted from the old testament A LOT as if it was literal such as the creation and the flood. So knowing that people were being murdered because God had been misheard when talking to Abraham, don't you think Jesus would have taken the time to clear it up?

As it is Jesus said he had not come to change ANY part of the law, even a little bit: 'jot or tittle'.

^ I think it's the traditional Jewish^

So god didn't have a hand in it? I know people say god inspired it instead of actually writing it himself but if someone showed me a book they had written and said I had inspired them to write it about me and I discovered there were passages that went on about how I wanted gay people killed I think I'd have something to say about it and a court case would swiftly follow!

Jesus quoted from the old testament A LOT

Of course he did. He was a Jew preaching to a largely Jewish audience.

The parts that He referenced were primarily about teachings like the 10 commandments and divorce:

jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus-references-to-old-testament-scriptures/

As to Genesis and the creation story, do you read this as a literal acceptance of the creation story, seven day timeline and all?

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

I would also point out that he was hated by the Jewish authorities at the time who were quite pleased to see him executed by the Romans. If he was simply parroting OT teachings, why didn't the accept him as one of their own? And why did they persecute his followers?

Regardless, you cannot tie what I believe as a modern Christian to a literal belief in the OT.

If you don't believe it all literally, how can you tell which bits are to be taken literally and which are not, if you have doubts about parts of it, does it not call the whole thing into doubt?

If you don't believe it all literally, how can you tell which bits are to be taken literally and which are not, if you have doubts about parts of it, does it not call the whole thing into doubt?

The three sources of authority in my denomination are scripture, tradition and reason and they uphold and critique each other in a dynamic way.

I use these three sources to determine how to interpret it. The Bible is a collection of books assembled over hundreds of years (thousands if you include the OT), much of which are clearly allegory and never meant to be interpreted literally. When Jesus said "I am the vine: you are the branches" he didn't mean that he was an actual plant.

Jesus metamorphosing into a plant is, in my opinion, no more out there than Mary being impregnated by the holy spirit. You could say, well obviously that whole part wasn't meant to be taken literally too.

Regardless, you cannot tie what I believe as a modern Christian to a literal belief in the OT.

Two hundred years ago you would have believed the creation story. It's only because of science that it has become allegorical.

It's obvious that what is consigned to metaphor is what we now know to be false such as the flood.

Two hundred years ago you would have believed

But it's not 200 years ago, innit?

In 1638 Galileo was convicted of heresy for challenging the literal reading of Genesis, so it's not purely a modern thing.

As to Genesis and the creation story, do you read this as a literal acceptance of the creation story, seven day timeline and all?

You're begging the question. The only reason you ask this is because science has shown the genesis account to be fictional. You make it sound like it's always been obvious it was ridiculous. It hasn't because there was a time we didn't know better (I know young earth creationists)

As for the resurrection story, do you read this as a literal acceptance of someone coming back from the dead after three days and all?

As to Mary and Joseph and the pregnant virgin story, do you read this as a literal acceptance of someone who has never had sex being made pregnant by god and all?

As to the Jesus turning water into wine story, do you read this as a literal acceptance of someone being able to turn h2o into an alcoholic beverage and all?

I read all those as actual occurrences located within history, hih. With regards creation story, it's so important to apply exegesis and historical method - when was it written, by whom, for whom? It's clear that it was written a few thousand years before Christ in an attempt to understand the origins of humankind and explain the fall from being reconciled with God to choosing human sinfulness. The OT is an unfolding story of a people who are finding their way and a journey of faith and doubt, and I think never meant to be used as a literal reading in terms of historicity - although we are able to locate much of it in history (exile, Kings, judges etc). From the start we can see poetry and allegory in Genesis, not least from the 2 creation accounts bringing out different aspects, all showing God as creator and humanity as loved children with choice.

But the NT can be much more located in history. The gospel accounts were written a very short time after the events in terms of ancient writings and could so easily be contested at the time. The events of Christ's life, death and resurrection were documented and passed down through generations as literal history and were the foundation on which the church was built and thrived within a few short years. The writings were much too close to the events to be steeped in myth or legend. They were accounts written as factual histories. Now, of course that doesn't mean they were true, but there's still a difference to be seen in their context and history - and for me, plenty of evidence of the mark of truth from the start.

I love the OT and the NT and find them both inspired by God, but don't have a problem when Christians differ on aspects of OT stuff ie whether they are YEC or creationist evolutionists or whatever, because they are responding to the story in different ways. But all Christians work by the clear tenets laid down in the gospels because they are the very centre of the Christian faith; they are the kernel of it all and Jesus is the Christian story from his conception to his ascension - rooted in history not myth, which is unprecedented among religions.

The writings were much too close to the events to be steeped in myth or legend.

Nope. You absolutely cannot make this claim. Myths and legends don't necessarily take years to produce. And at some point all myths and legends were 'new'.

rooted in history not myth, which is unprecedented among religions.

Can you explain further?

Something that grows out of events in a historical time and setting within a few years cannot be equated with legend. Historians have supported this and said that legend needs many more decades to develop and take shape, and then shifts around for long after that until its shape looks very little like its origin. Yet we know that early Christian communities we're meeting and worshipping Christ as resurrected within very few years after the death of Jesus. In Paul's writings we see the earliest creeds and songs of faith, and we see no divergence from these or development of legend away from these in the subsequent decades and centuries. We know that what we believe and worship about Jesus today is what the earliest Christians believed and worshipped about Jesus.

Unprecedented among religions because other religions usually come from a place of an individual having a revelation - perhaps an angelic visitation or the claim of god speaking to them, but isolated from any events in space-time history. Christianity is absolutely and firmly located in historical events rather than in someone's personal assurances that they have heard god. It started with verifiable happenings which could have been contested at any time and yet the faith grew like wildfire in an incredibly short time. I love that Christianity is not based on a revelation to one person but on the experience of a whole bunch of people located around one person who died and was resurrected on the third day.