All Comments (62)

Now you can order popular anti-allergy medication called zyrtec. The Fastest FeDex overnight delivery. No prior prescription required.

Get FDA approved prescription meds from a US licensed pharmacy. FedEx overnight shipping. No Prior RX needed. You will save time and money here.

An evangelical is a "propheteering" profiteer thumping the bible or the koran.

Take all the brain power over the centuries used to make the nonsensical beliefs of Christianity seem believable and you could power rockets into outer space forever.

The angels continue their "dance".

Its fascinating to read the arcane, almost jesuitically nuanced views expressed in the article.

Sooner or later a would-be convert to Christianity will need an advanced degree in theology or advice from a Canon Lawyer to figure out just what they're signing on to.

I don't dislike leftist atheist because they don't believe in God but because they seem to think the most important thing in the world is to rob peter and give 10% of the proceeds to Paul while using the other ninety percent to grow a government that is already far to big and unresponsive to manage to adequately do even the things it was originally intended to deal.

Charity is a good thing but giving the government money doesn't provably help anyone but the bureaucrats.

We don't dislike Evangelicals because they love God or Jesus. We dislike Evangelicals because of their authoritarian, hardened hearts.

You can tell an Evangelical by his/her insistance that Jesus' #1 concern was not helping the poor and disadvantaged. They will tell you Jesus cares more about high taxes, making the US the #1 super power in the world, and condemning gays and abortions.

To outside observers: Conservative evangelicals seem to have more in common with the right wing German Nazis than with the Jesus of the scriptures.

I admit the above does not apply to more moderate and liberal Christians. And some "Evangelicals" are not always of the hardened right wing variety -- but when the VOTE for the George Bush's -- it really comes down to the SAME effect, doesn't it.

Afterall: Doesn't the Bible itself say, ye shall judge them by their fruits?

We don't dislike Evangelicals because they love God or Jesus. We dislike Evangelicals because of their authoritarian, hardened hearts.

You can tell an Evangelical by his/her insistance that Jesus' #1 concern was not helping the poor and disadvantaged. They will tell you Jesus cares more about high taxes, making the US the #1 super power in the world, and condemning gays and abortions.

To outside observers: Conservative evanglicals seem to have more in common with the right wing German Nazis than with the Jesus of the scriptures.

I admit the above does not apply to more moderate and liberal Christians. And some "Evangelicals" are not always of the hardened right wing variety -- but when the VOTE for the George Bush's -- it really comes down to the SAME effect, doesn't it.

Afterall: Doesn't the Bible itself say, ye shall judge them by their fruits?

Yeah, sure Monty Keeling but which God you talking about when you said, "the Bible is the most direct history of experience between God and humanity."?

It takes the long reach to stretch the being in the burning bush all the way to God. IT didn't have the horsepower to get the Israelites out of Egypt without promoting a *killer on the run* to the highest post ever, leader of the chosen people of God. There are many questions besides the obvious but aren't we all the chosen people of the real God? Was that the real God in the burning bush?

That sure looks like the angel that attempted a "Reformation" in heaven--throw God out and seat Himself of the throne of God, you know, like Henry VIII did to the pope. His name is Lucifer. He was rewarded for His efforts by being make Lord of hell.

Celebrated author and biblical scholar Fr Marty here has no evidence or even the flimsiest arguments that's not the case or at least he's remained silent. The same goes for all the others of his contemporaries who follow in the footsteps of Moses.

They say they follow Jesus but it's really Moses they imitate. Jesus was the humble son of the being in the burning bush, Lord of hell Lucifer. His father sacrificed Jesus His only begotten son to appease Himself. Makes all the sense in the world that unless one does as those learned Bible scholars say one must do then one will not spend all eternity in the kingdom of the father of Jesus. Want in on it do you?

Those in the know know better than spending all eternity in hell. That goes many fold when it's the victims that must pay Lucifer's fee by putting the money on the plate, his fee for those leading the multitudes to Him. They call it "gifts to God" but who spends the money? And of course, the ministers with the biggest flocks, the ones leading the most folks to hell garner the largest fees.

Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the idea God would want God's only begotten son crucified? That must be a little bit of insurance for Lucifer or at least an, "in your face" thing. Lucifer knows that anyone wanting into heaven that says, God I was in on the crucifying of your son doesn't stand a chance of avoiding hell. Does that make sense?

Monty,
good posts.

"The word weird usually applies to anyone who doesn't think like me, and those who scare me."

It's true. But as a former Lutheran for 45 of my 47 years, I've also begun to see we can replace the word "weird" with "the fallen world."

Where I see the attempts of Evangelicals to define themselves, I still cringe at the demonization and characterization of all-things-evil as "the world," and I would venture to say that it's been used as a metaphor in 10s of thousands of sermons I've heard throughout my lifetime.

I would rephrase your quote to read:

"The religious reference to the words 'the world' usually apply to anyone who doesn't think like me, and those who scare me."

And to the extent that the religious hate the world, or are "not a part of the world," or are out to "save" the world, or who look forward to the destruction of "the world," I bid them good riddance. I am wholly a part of the world, suffer and celebrate the world. It's the only one I got.

And I think one doesn't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus at all to appreciate his message of compassion, justice and equality. Some of his other messages I could have done without...

Once we "conservative" Christians become comfortable with the idea that the Bible is the most direct history of experience between God and humanity, and not a literal dictation from the Almighty, a whole new universe of possibilities opens itself to us. And, surprisingly enough, the Jesus we knew before doesn't change. We are just more able to live in God's grace, and more able to love others.

Evangelical belief without belief in literal inerrancy seems to be little different from the liberal religion of those who, like me and presumably cassandra, think that the Bible may be the most important link between the human and the divine but ia still a work marked by human limitations and weaknesses, as are all other literary works. Reformed evangelicalism will be very welcome. Reformed Catholicism next?

The word weird usually applies to anyone who doesn't think like me, and those who scare me. For those who are secular anybody who takes Jesus Christ seriously is going to be considered weird. If people understood the whole history of the evangelical movement, and all the good they have done for the poor and marginalized, they wouldn't be afraid of the good intentions of the majority of these folks. As in all organizations, government, religious, ect., the cream of the crop doesn't always rise to the top. This can lead to bad press because it's those who don't really represent the whole body of believers that end of getting the coverage.

It upsets me that a lot of the negative remarks about Evangelicals and The Bible are coming from folks who, by the content of their posts, are proving they don't know much about either. Unless you've had enough experience with a number of those involved in the evangelical movement, there's no way to understand who they are.

Scientific biblical scholarship reveals that evangelical belief is nonsense. If that is not enough for Prof. Marty then he too must be a fool.

Yes they are. We are voting them out, and would banish them from the country, if possible!

Thank you Dr. Marty! The distinction between "evangelical" and "evangelicamism" is highly important. The "ism" is driven by a ruthless grasping for secular power. As a non-literal, politically liberal, gay Episcopalian, I consider myself an "evangelical" because it is my mission to show grace and love to people around me, without expecting credal agreement. My ELCA friends share the same perspective. In that sense, my Unitarian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim friends also tend to be "evangelical".

Does not matter what you say, a hypocrit is a hypocrit no matter what you color them. A pastor/preacher/deacon/priest/padre is there to teach the word of the Lord, not to interpret it through "sound bites" or snippets of lines that fulfill your prejudiced view of what should or should not be.

People need to take the word of God to heart and not act as a parrot to collect funds, have big churches, impressive cars and everything else these preachers seem to have these days.

Anybody who thinks the Earth is only 4500-6000 years old is really weird.

I want to thank the two invited bloggers for their essays. Sadly, and the reason I read much on blogs, much that gets put up is comments is pure nonsense and blather. It would be nice if the responses could be moderated so only reasoned responses that are to the point are posted.

Wierd, no they just think they are possessed by four supernatural beings -- God the Father, who talks to them, Jesus in their Heart, the Holy Spirit, and then of course, a thing called a soul -- plus of course their ouw brain. Pretty confusing, but not wierd. They believe that God is constantly doing all sorts of things in their lives, at times manipulating the people around them like puppets. Wierd? Neurotic? No, just very religious.

Anyone who believes in something with zero basis in reality for said belief is WACKO.

Parse it all you want, discuss it all you want, they're still wacko.

I can't read past the word "Manifesto".

Evangelicals are not weird? Hmmm.

They're in the same class exactly as people who practice voodoo, satanism, pantheism, islam, judaism, or any other religion. They are no different than people who believe in Thor, Zeus, Lucifer, Jehovah, Allah, or any other god figure.

The fact is they're not any different because they have chosen to believe a superstition to explain that which cannot be explained.

I will grant you that most evangelicals are guilt-ridden fanatics that are overcompensating by going OCD on every syllable written by people who had a very limited knowledge of science. I would also grant you that evangelicals shut out facts and seldom let their religion stop them from performing heinous acts such as murder and child and spouse abuse.

But weird? They're no weirder than the rest of us, they just have more superstitions.

-Wexler

Professor Marty does a good job of explaining some of the more defining features of evangelicalism; however, there are some Pentescostals and Reformed folks who cringe at being called evangelical. For them, third stage evangelicalism that Marty delineates is a popular movement that has rarely been able to "center" a church in all its idiosyncratic beliefs as Pentecostalism or the more thoroughly Reformed folks at places such as Calvin College.

Thus, where Professor Jacobs teaches, in an interdenominational, evangelical Christian institution, it is not very easy to define evangelical behavior either, especially since the behavioral codes are calibrated to fit mainstream evangelical beliefs: And, just what are those beliefs? Those that Gallup reports to us or is there someone who speaks for evangelicalism like Billy Graham?

Professor Marty does a good job of explaining some of the more defining features of evangelicalism; however, there are some Pentescostals and Reformed folks who cringe at being called evangelical. For them, third stage evangelicalism that Marty delineates is a popular movement that has rarely been able to "center" a church in all its idiosyncratic beliefs as Pentecostalism or the more thoroughly Reformed folks at places such as Calvin College.

Thus, where Professor Jacobs teaches, in an interdenominational, evangelical Christian institution, it is not very easy to define evangelical behavior either, especially since the behavioral codes are calibrated to fit mainstream evangelical beliefs: And, just what are those beliefs? Those that Gallup reports to us or is there someone who speaks for evangelicalism like Billy Graham?

I'm not saying evangelicals are weird. All what I'm saying is they are not Christian.
They bamboozle for money and power.
Nothing Christian in confusing the confused to pick their pockets.

Yikes, Marty, did you write this in the dark and not proofread it??? It badly needs editing for grammar and clarity.

"Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe".

I find it astonishing and arrogant that evangelicals portray themselves as having the "final" word on matters concerning God and Faith. This is a clear attempt to define God rather than God transforming us into "true" children. Perhaps what is even more egregious is the manner in which they feel compelled to coerce other humans into their form of "worship". These religious practices have been packaged more as a business plan than as true faith; notice how tithing is preached and enforced in major Protestant denominations. Some of the logic and associated rhetoric which comes out of the minds, hearts, and mouths of the tele-evangelicals is in stark contrast to traditional Christian values such as humility, kindness, peace, tolerance, and love. It was Christ who said "many will come in my name..."

In my mind, evangelicals are closer to centrists in classical Christian doctrine, and by centrist I mean the central ancient creeds of the church such as the Apostles' or Nicean creeds. Evangelicals are concerned with protecting orthodox dogma. 'Fundamentalism' is closer to an emotional attitude clinging to exclusivism and centering on 'we alone' have the truth in our inner circle.

Yeah STEVEN, Pineapple1 is big into the "B.S." alright. There's a silver lining to that rather black cloud.

The deeper the better in the B.S. department. Did you know there is enough of that being wasted to power the country? B.S. gives off methane, natural gas, the stuff we use to cook our food in most of the country.

Methane allowed to go into the atmosphere is 25 times more "green houseie" than carbon dioxide. Burning it is a win win. Burn one methane and get one CO2 thus divide it's harmful effects by 25 and cook your food, heat your house, or run your car as a by product of being ecological. Let's have a big cheer for B.S.

Pineapple1, "oh no ya don't. Forget about it." President Obama will know what to do about all that B.S. Cheer up. It's good fer ya.

Yes they are.

Evangelism is exactly in the spirit of jihad, and manifestos are no more than fatwas.

ColeM:

"Sorry but the overwhelming need to force your mythology on others not only makes you wierd but also dangerous."

You should practice what you preach, period!

Sorry but the overwhelming need to force your mythology on others not only makes you wierd but also dangerous.

Wow, Pineapple, you can demonize as good as the best of them!

The Respected Senator John McCain would “Never,” even consider such an absurdity “the MAN is a US War Veteran,” and Senator Obama you could learn a thing or two from John McCain.

Citizens living in Hawai’i are having fits “absolutely outraged,” writing endless letters and commentaries (Comments) to both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star Bulletin since they printed that the appointed junior Senator is coming to Hawai’i possibly giving a speaking engagement inside Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. It’s a Veteran’s National Cemetery not Obama’s personal “Soap Box,” to stand on and rant; it’s a place for those resting in peace. The people of Hawaii are angry at the thought of this and have every right to be at the report he’s planning this – it’s a disgrace. Punchbowl would NOT be a "wonderful backdrop." Talk about crass -- speechifying in a national cemetery during a political campaign. Imagine this: thousands of enthralled Obama supporters rushing around the cemetery to get close to the man, trampling over the graves of men and women who've given their lives in service to their country. The reactions posted in Comments still, when the idea of a Punchbowl speech was first floated are from angry families whose loved ones rest in peace. National cemeteries are no place for political speeches. Makes you wonder about the maturity and integrity of the people who proposed such a preposterous idea in the first place.

Senator sell your socialism opinions on Capitol Hill, Hawaii’s questioning and lost respect for the “so-called,” junior appointed Senator who’s turned into another Washington D.C.*Wanna-bee* just allot of talk nothing more. You’d make a great car salesman NOT A PRESIDENT you seem to sell plenty of B.S. to those not wise enough to read between the lines of a script written performance; every word out of your mouth is written by a paid staff member whose worked the D.C. circuit for years like the well known Mr. Rove,” Yes, he too, could write a good speech and America bought it; just look at our current sitting “Bobble head,” in the oval office.

Webster’s Fourth Edition describes Barack Obama as a “HYPOCRITE,” His own Pastor taught Trinity Church words of hate and racism while the Senator and his air-head-of-a-wife passed the tithe platter not giving even as 20 year members. He doesn’t support any causes really, not even his own Church “just the views of Reverend Wright’s anti-White; anti-Israel; anti-American points of view. A “greedy,” Senator is described in the Bible as a “HYPOCRITE,” as well. He’s a Racist Elitist Marxist or the Antichrist reading his well written speeches. the *Wanna-bee* Washington Politician has in less then 12 months become a disgrace to Christianity– He’s not a Christian man of his word; a poor excuse for one.

The Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii is a sacred place for the many lying in Peace, Those US Military young and old, Men and Woman who gave their lives to this country will turn over in their graves at the sound of Obama’s political performance if he speaks there. Punchbowl Cemetery it’s not a place for a campaign rally “The Senator should keep his political performances with its Washington Socialism undertones to an area more suiting for “HYPOCRITES,” Senator your always welcomed to rant at Neil Abercrombie’s headquarters, but Punchbowl Cemetery is a resting place of peace and should remain so for those who rest there, - not an arena for your personal political agenda; Show some decency and class moron.

BGONE, your lists of possibilities are too short.

You also make incorrect assumptions about what you think I 'believe'

I have noticed that you have a keen interest in proving/disproving literal interpretation and historical observability of the bible stories (hence my earlier comment about being wrapped around the axle). I might recommend you read some of Joseph Campbell's works, or read some of Carl Jung. You might (or might not) find them illuminating.

STEVEN, JWS - take the Bible out of your arguments and see what you have left. Everything you're saying is predicated on the Bible being the word of God. Is it?

There are three possibilities:
1. The Bible is the word of God.
2. The Bible is a hoax word of God.
3. The Bible is the word of Devil.

Remember that the Bible says Jesus was the son of the being in the burning bush. Three thins are possible.

1. IT was God in the burning bush.
2. The story of the burning bush is a lie, (hoax).
3. IT was a Devil in the burning bush.

Before you make major decisions, vote for Bush for example because he's "born again" don't you think it's a good idea to try to verify that the Bible is truly the word of God? Have you done that or are you taking the word of someone else, as expert like Borg or Mr Marty here? What can they know that you cannot know?

Your faith is in the Bible and/or someone with a Bible claiming to be an expert saying it's God's word and not in God. Whatever will God do with you and them?

Read Exodus and verify that was God in the burning bush for yourself. It's not a difficult story.

A "Hebrew" the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter raised at the palace in luxury killed an important person and rather than face justice fled Egypt. He was living in poverty eking out a living tending someone else's sheep. But then his "luck" changed. He met a supernatural being that lives in fire of the variety found only in hell. IT "got him off the murder rap hook" and turned him into the most important person that ever lived, spiritual founder of the three great faiths. That supernatural being could not get what IT wanted without help from trickery and lots of help from people. Doesn't sound much like the God you believe to be the father of Jesus to me. Sounds a lot more like the biggest Devil of them all, Lord of hell, Lucifer.

Steven, I just realized I forgot to reference your Matthew 27:52 reference. While others may find different 'truths' in that passage than me. A truth that comes immediately to my mind is that this passage is telling us of the profound importance of Jesus death. Whether this is a literary device by the author of Matthew, a set of strange visions witnessed by Jesus followers when he died, or a literal raising of the dead of former saints is not so important to me. What is important, and is therefore the truth of this passage to me is that this statement points to the significance of Jesus' crucifixion for heresy. I would say that this passage is true, I just don't know if it really happened or not.

Thanks for your questions... it helps me to focus my own thoughts.

Excellent points Steven! And you are right in that the "truth is in the eye of the beholder' construct is a reference to the personal. We ARE social animals and have many things in common. And yet this often does not seem to matter. For example, I and my siblings have very different political views even though we were raised in the same house same parents same rules. We share a common history and common upbringing, and yet view the world very differently.

Is there a universal truth? or is all truth relative. I am open to either possibility and honestly still in search of the answers. I would venture to say that if there is a universal truth, it is God, whatever 'God' is.

As for interpretation of your quoted passage from Paul:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Here are a couple of possible interpretations:

1) The literalist interpretation, in which heart is no longer beating, brain no longer functioning, etc. and then a theistic God bends the laws of biology and physics to do something miraculous.

2) What is meant by 'dead'? Given our knowledge of science, the modern definition of dead is probably very different that that of people 2K years ago. Taking that further, could dead mean something other than literally dead? If metaphorical, then there are many different definitions that would apply. Maybe 'dead' to some people means that the old personality is shed and a new personality takes over. Maybe it is as simple as a revelation of some new knowledge that remakes us into a new person. Evangelicals among others sometimes use the phrase "born again". This is in analogy to the resurrection story and is a statement of new understanding in what Christ reveals to them. Jesus martyrdom is the ultimate sacrifice and is his final lesson to his followers.

3) Some modern biblical scholars (Borg and others) talk about a duality in Christ. A pre-easter Jesus and a post easter Christ. In this model, Christ is a group consciousness that emerges and grows within society. It is perhaps a more mystical and deeper version of number 2) above. It is God showing us how to emerge from the 'animal' and become 'human'. It is what happens after the historical Jesus of Nazareth literally dies. In this model the resurrection is not just a metaphor but also an actual event -- though not necessarily the literalist version of the event.

Different groups subscribe to different interpretations. I suspect that most Christians are in the literal bodily resurrection camp, but certainly not all. The real question is, should it matter how the resurrection event occurred? Does it make a difference on how Christians are to grow the "Kingdom of God" and "live like Christ"?

As an aside, you should also note that this is a letter from Paul to one of his seedling congregations. It is a discussion of his interpretation of the resurrection event. It is NOT a direct quote from Jesus.

JWS thanks again, sorry we're the only ones typing right now.

I applaud anything that the church does to better the welfare of the less-fortunate. In my own town, an attempt at an "interfaith" hospitality network was "killed in committee," so to speak, ironically by the handful of churches who were willing to meet, but fortunately the challenge of housing the homeless has been taken over by a secular organization and I believe will be successful.

I applaud your work to help those in need, and in that I am in agreement and would put into the collection plate, with a loud "Amen!"

Keep up the good work, I enjoyed talking with you.

Signing off for now

JWS, thanks for the post.

Yes, I would be curious of your take on this:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

It seems to be that there is no "wiggle room" on this issue.

So again here is my premise:
A human being (God) born from the union of an egg and (? divine sperm?) grew into a man who was punished by death (the divine purpose for his existance,) was dead for a couple of days, and then was alive again and "ascended" as Lord.

Dr. Marty's conclusion: not weird.

GaryD's thought: I just need to dig deeper into science to appreciate what really could be explainable such as parthenogenesis (regarding the virgin birth,) and what we can do with chickens now with engineering and breeding methods. (Ironically, I know a little bit about both subjects.) If we can see things like that in nature, who are we to say if God bringing the dead (?himself) back to life after a couple of days would be anything unusual or "weird?"

(That second verse,

"52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many" was just thrown in there to sweeten the deal.

Which verses should I discard as "truth" and which not? Or, is there "a truth" to be learned metaphorically from those holy dead people who climbed out of their tombs and ??went home, ??appeared to many, ??hung around, ??can you think of any better options?

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe. Are some truths better than other truths? What truths might we all agree on, and how might we come to agree, to the best of human ability, on which are the "best" truths? Is there a way to decide on "practical" truths, those which we'd be willing to bet our net worth on?

Is it appropriate to think that something like "all truth is relevant, but no truth is universal. There is nothing that is truthful, or all truths are truthful, there is no difference, no differentiation, and no reason to pursue a common truth because there is no such thing as a universal or even best truth, all truths are private truths."

By the way this is considered a "philosopher's fallacy" argument and has been appropriately addressed elsewhere. Truth existing in the eye of the beholder is a description of a "private" truth theory, and generally isn't the best argument because we are intrinsically social animals, exist in social structures, and live and die in many groupings of society.

Steven I agree that public perception is that 'evangelicals' are intolerant themselves. Thus the feelings of distrust by non-evangelicals. And I think it is fair to ask why has it taken so long for the less vocal Evangelicals to step up and disavow these people who took it on themselves to speak for the 'evangelicals'. But this manifesto (I have now read it) is a good step in that direction. I also note that intolerance is wide ranging and many non-evangelicals practice it.

On the other hand, I do see examples all the time of 'hate the sin love the sinner'. Just yesterday I was at an inner city cafe staffed by volunteers that feeds homeless during the week and raises money to help these 'sinners' during the weekend.

What we see portrayed in the mainstream media does not always reflect reality.

Are, "righteous," "rightist," "fanatic" and other unflattering terms used to describe Evangelicals on the "endangered words" list likely to be canceled like the "N" word?

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" auto-transforms into "make sin unlawful" auto-transforming into "our minister shall be crowned king." The pope is "prince of the church" (Jesus is king in absentia). All laws shall pass muster with his holiness first and he has the authority to decide who has broken the law, (Galileo).

Religion defines sin. Sin defines religion. And the winner is -- the envelope please -- ah, those who start religions for they shall rule the world. And they shall begin their rule with a manifesto, or was that an edict? Surely not an encyclical?

Anonymous, why do you think evangelicals might perceive such "hatred" from non-believers?

Why on earth would there be such strong feelings toward Evangelicals, in regards to what this manifesto proclaims?

What "Evangelical actions" might have caused such a response by the small group of non-believers who frequent this site, but who nonetheless are a very small portion of the American population?

Do you think a manifesto of self-definition sufficiently calms the political waters, or relieves the tensions, or for that matter does anything significant at all?

"Hate the sin, love the sinner." Where would I look to see this played out in our everyday lives?

Steven, could you be more specific as to what you disagree on?

In my experience, I have found quite a bit of wiggle room with many different viewpoints among the authors of the various books of the bible. Furthermore there are broad differences between the way that the authors originally interpreted their own words (historical context illuminated by modern biblical scholarship), the way the early church reinterpreted these same words (paul vs. peter, gnostics, etc.), and the way we now interpret these words (colored by both early church interpretations and modern science). I think the abundance of doctrinal differences between denominations makes this clear.

Dr. Martin wote "For thirty of forty years they got called "righteous," "rightist," "fanatic" and other unflattering terms that are not at the heart and core of evangelicalism."

Thank you Dr. Martin for your article depicting terms that are used to describe evangelicals. I have read post from non-Christians and non-believers that “cut deeply” and make me "shutter" because they are so full of hatred.

Evangelicals are not "evil" but hate the sin and not the sinner, there is a difference yet we are ostracized, put down, demeaned, belittled as if we are "deviants" of society and certainly sent a strong message of being "not wanted."

Accounting for, doing a history all the different "faiths" no matter what they are called is like doing the same thing for all the pieces of a bomb after detonation. It's impossible to be wrong about what an imaginary piece did because so many pieces went in every direction. The Reformation was a bomb going off that continues to go off, like a high tech firework with individual pieces exploding into individual pieces that explode into more pieces that explode. Religion is chaos for that reason alone. Lucifer just loves it but what does God think about it is the real question.

Just a sill question. You said, "Evangelicals have high views of biblical authority." What are some of the other authorities? The pope decides what Catholics must believe and do but doesn't even he rely of interpretation of the Bible? Try removing "biblical authority" and see what you have left. You know the Bible is a proved hoax so there isn't any reliable authority.

Religion is a mind altering agent like alcohol and drugs. They give the individual a path to never never land where wonderful things are so numerous they are uncountable. They promise heaven but what they deliver is really hell. An evangelical manifesto is equally sensible as an acid-head manifesto. Timothy Leary wrote one of them didn't he? That would be about the time Billy Graham noticed the plate with all that money on it for the dealer. Moses made a deal with some supernatural being. Deals is what it's all about with or without a manifesto.

JWS, thanks for your reply.
I will respectfully disagree. Even defined within the scripture itself, this particular topic is a "truth" that has no wiggle room.

GaryD, what I received from you sir was a non-answer to a very simply question. I can find the same "truths" to which you refer in the Iliad and the Odyssey, much older than the scriptures. In fact, by your emphasis, Calvin and Hobbes has as many "truths."

Thanks, nevertheless, for your reply. It does give me some bearing on your writing.

Dear Professor Marty

As a Christian first and a Catholic by denomination, I wish you a Happy Holy Trinity Day! A day to reflect on John 14-17.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

The argument about the virgin birth of course. That is the one you were making in the second paragraph whether you realized it or not.

Understand something sir, parts of the Bible are meant metaphorically some are allegories there is no form of human language that you will not find in the Bible but there is also truth. The basic truth is that none of us are now or have ever been perfect. Therefore, before a God for whom the only standard is perfection we simply by our own powers cannot measure up.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

... OK, that is probably too obtuse a statement by itself. So here is another way to put it: I recall a quote from some book I read recently where a shaman was discussing a mythological story. And the quote went something like 'I don't know if this really happened, but I do know it is true'

Whether or not an event is historical, or observable by video camera should be unimportant. Obviously many folks disagree with me on this and put a lot of importance of the historicity of religious 'events'. But I would venture to say that that misses the point. Two people can witness the same event and come away with two very different perceptions. Art is like that. What the artist intends and what an audience gets out of it may be divergent. So the 'truth' that I get out of something like a story in the bible is different than the 'truth' that someone else gets out of it. My circumstances are different, my needs are different, my desires are different. Thus truth is in the eye of the beholder.

On the other side of the coin. Just as I don't want someone else dictating to me what my 'truth' should be, I can appreciate that the evangelicals don't want a few vocal opportunist politicians (aka the moral majority) to dictate what their 'truth' is.

GaryD,
which argument do you refer?

The resurrection?

JWS, which part of the premise should be interpreted as "a metaphorical truth" instead of "the truth?"

I'd be interested in GaryD's take on that question as well.

There's a lot riding on your answer, so be careful!

A number of you seemed to be wrapped around the axle of literal interpretation. With our increasing scientific knowledge of of the last few centuries, there is a tendency to interpret the bible stories as historical, which of course causes a break-down in logic. However, just because a story is fictional doesn't make it not have a truth.

There are many folks who haven't gotten past their adolescent understanding of biblical literature. (And boy, the people in West Virginia really need to get out more :o) But don't ignore the fact that others within a denomination may have a better understanding of the truth behind the myth. Note that Jesus told myths (aka parables) to make his points.

Furthermore, that there are politicians who also have an adolescent understanding of scripture is not surprising. That these politicians pander is to be expected. But I don't think it is fair to characterize any group by the actions and words of a few extremists.

I have not read the manifesto. But it they are trying to shed the misunderstandings that both outsiders and insiders have of their faith, then I applaud their efforts.

Steven have you ever heard of parthenogenesis and what man can do with chickens certain any being worthy of being called God could certainly have managed with humans and done it much better. That argument goes back at least to the Gnostics of the ancient world. It is even easier to dispatch now.

Not Weird?

Okay, here's the premise: (I have to preface that I'm unable to take the CS Lewis approach of "it's so weird that it must be true!")

A human being (God) born from the union of an egg and (? divine sperm?) grew into a man who was punished by death (the divine purpose for his existance,) was dead for a couple of days, and then was alive again and "ascended" as Lord.

Did his heart start beating again? Did the cellular damage and rigor-mortis un-do itself? Was there any wound leakage? Did the separated blood re-unite and unclot? Did he have normal body temperature of 98.6 degrees? When he ate, did he need to use the bathroom again? Did the spear wound to his side perforate his bowel?

And what of all the other "dead" who came alive again on that day (coming out of their graves and appearing to many?) Did they just grow old and die again? Did they smell bad?

Academic Christianity seems to me to be a huge exercise to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I couldn't agree more with Rich's post. Self-define all you want, and PaganPlace put it right by seeing what the manifesto says best: those secularists within "the fallen planet" have "stained" the good and wholesome name and cause of Evangelism. Bah-humbug.

"For thirty of forty years they got called "righteous," "rightist," "fanatic" and other unflattering terms that are not at the heart and core of evangelicalism. To desert that part of their recent past does not make evangelicals wishy-washy. It means that they want to realign themselves with their classic priorities and be seen as attending to them."

If your primary public figures conduct themselves they way they have for the last thirty or 40 years, then guess what? That