What Happened To All The Christians!?

[WinePusher]

Seems to me like the Christian Apologist demographic is shrinking. Many old time users, (which I realize from looking through the older threads) such as Achilles, Jester, ST_JB, scottlittlefield, olivasijo, Goose, otseng, etc......don't participate as much; while there are alot of veteran atheist/nonbeliever/agnostic users that still do.

Whats Happening!? Did I miss the rapture?

[Slopeshoulder]

...in rare cases ... the non-theists back down and get friendly when presented with reasoned arguments and reasonable positions that throw modernity a bone.

So you're saying that miracles can still happen?

LOL. Nah, it's simple cause and effect.

[Fisherking]

. Except in rare cases (real asshats IMO), the non-theists back down and get friendly when presented with reasoned arguments and reasonable positions that throw modernity a bone.

Of course they become friendly if you accept their premises and conclusions, or waffle on something you believe to be true that they believe to be false. A reasonable position is reasonable regardless of whether it is "modern" or not. I'm not a big fan of the whole "modern" mood thing though

[Slopeshoulder]

. Except in rare cases (real asshats IMO), the non-theists back down and get friendly when presented with reasoned arguments and reasonable positions that throw modernity a bone.

Of course they become friendly if you accept their premises and conclusions, or waffle on something you believe to be true that they believe to be false. A reasonable position is reasonable regardless of whether it is "modern" or not. I'm not a big fan of the whole "modern" mood thing though

Well, that's not what I meant. I never waffle. Rather, I meant that adopting a thoroughgoing pre-modern mindset as one's starting point in 2010 is not credible. You may disagree.
But are you suggesting that a framework or mental model that takes seriously the major currents of thought in all fields of human inquiry for the past 600 years is to be dismissed outright to serve one's magical beliefs and pre-existing aesthetic preferences and emotional loyalties? Is that the starting point for Christianity? How would one begin making that case in a non-circular way? I'm post-modern and am happy to de-center modernity, especiially in the cuse of religion (looking for ways to do that has been a passion of mine), but I don't think we can ever do so in the service of a restored pre-modernity with credibility or honesty. God tells me he hates that.

[Fisherking]

But are you suggesting that a framework or mental model that takes seriously the major currents of thought in all fields of human inquiry for the past 600 years is to be dismissed outright to serve one's magical beliefs and pre-existing aesthetic preferences and emotional loyalties?

No, that was not my suggestion, nor do I consider my beliefs magical or based upon some some pre-existing preference or emotional loyalty. Whether or not modern thought should be dismissed should be based upon logic and evidence, not whether or not it is modern.

Is that the starting point for Christianity?

The starting point for Christianity has always been the Holy Scriptures.

[EduChris]

...The starting point for Christianity has always been the Holy Scriptures.

I would say that the starting point for Christianity is the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.

If you're the reading sort, you might be interested in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. The author, a longtime missionary in India, knows a thing or two about how the gospel must be made authentically intelligible within the plausibility structures of a given culture.

[Slopeshoulder]

But are you suggesting that a framework or mental model that takes seriously the major currents of thought in all fields of human inquiry for the past 600 years is to be dismissed outright to serve one's magical beliefs and pre-existing aesthetic preferences and emotional loyalties?

No, that was not my suggestion, nor do I consider my beliefs magical or based upon some some pre-existing preference or emotional loyalty. Whether or not modern thought should be dismissed should be based upon logic and evidence, not whether or not it is modern.

Agreed. But my point is that modernity has a better track record of credible evidence and logic that what passes for it in modern conservative belief. Their evidence and logic is weak, corrupt, and self serving, and convinces no one outside thier community with a good education and discernment. Which again is not to say "ditch religion" or let the vienna circle set terms. It is merely to suggest that we take modernity seriously.

Is that the starting point for Christianity?

The starting point for Christianity has always been the Holy Scriptures.

But surely never its end point outside of fundamentalist circles. That is a recipe for fundamentalism, literalism and ossification, no?

[Fisherking]

...The starting point for Christianity has always been the Holy Scriptures.

I would say that the starting point for Christianity is the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.

If you are referring to the gospel found in the Bible, I agree. If you mean what someone (in the past 600 yrs) has said about the gospel, I would have to disagree.

[Fisherking]

But my point is that modernity has a better track record of credible evidence and logic that what passes for it in modern conservative belief.

I would be interested in seeing the evidence for this (it would also help me understand what you mean by "modernity").

Their evidence and logic is weak, corrupt, and self serving, and convinces no one outside thier community with a good education and discernment.

Without knowing exactly what you mean by "modern conservative", I can say that all groups (even those with a good education) can have weak logic, be corrupt and self serving, and convince nobody ouside of their "elite educated circle".

...suggest that we take modernity seriously.

Sure, if it supported by logic and evidence.

Is that the starting point for Christianity?

The starting point for Christianity has always been the Holy Scriptures.

But surely never its end point outside of fundamentalist circles. That is a recipe for fundamentalism, literalism and ossification, no?

Sure, there are modern authors that have contributed to our understanding of the gospel (via the Bible), but in my opinion no more so than the traditional ones -- but to phase out the foundation or fundamentals (the gospel itself) in favor of "modernity" is dangerous, and in my opinion has done more to harm Christianity than help.

[Slopeshoulder]

I would be interested in seeing the evidence for this (it would also help me understand what you mean by "modernity").

Without knowing exactly what you mean by "modern conservative"...

...suggest that we take modernity seriously.

Sure, if it supported by logic and evidence.

Sure, there are modern authors that have contributed to our understanding of the gospel (via the Bible), but in my opinion no more so than the traditional ones -- but to phase out the foundation or fundamentals (the gospel itself) in favor of "modernity" is dangerous, and in my opinion has done more to harm Christianity than help.

Not sure what you mean by harming christianity; I think it has helped make it intelligible while disabusing it of its silliness. Except for Thomas Jefferson's bible, which was pretty silly IMO.

But I think I've misread you. I think at this point the best response is to suggest that you go further educate yourself regarding the specific definitions, scope, contributions, philosophy, theology, science, logic, evidence, and basic thrust of modernity (and post-modernity). I found that a university based divinity school was a very good place to do this, but Amazon.com may also be of use. Karen Armstong does the best job in single volumes for the general reader. You're basically looking at the period from Descartes through early Wittgenstein for modernity, and later Wittgenstein through rorty, derrida, taylor, foucoult, etc until the present time for post-modernity. (Post-modernity is actually friendlier to religion overall. Paleo-orthodoxy, even though I find it to be an unintelligable retrograde crock, is itself a product of post-modern thinking, growing out of narrative theology.)
I gather you are opining in absence of this knowledge and are out of your depth, dismissing and making glib generalizations about things of which you have little to no knowledge, and generally miscontruing my clarifications. I think this absence of knowledge and also a gospel-centrism are behind it.
Good luck!

[Fisherking]

Not sure what you mean by harming christianity; I think it has helped make it intelligible while disabusing it of its silliness.

I find it fairly intelligible without the modernism, but I am willing to listen as to why you believe it does.

But I think I've misread you. I think at this point the best response is to suggest that you go further educate yourself regarding the specific definitions, scope, contributions, philosophy, theology, science, logic, evidence, and basic thrust of modernity (and post-modernity).

Thank you for the suggestion, but my opinion of modernism/postmodernism could be summed up as:

"Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true.
Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do no claim that it is a “better� way.
Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it.
If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is thoroughly criticized. Thus, a journalist can walk into a church and mock its carryings on, but he or she dare not do the same if the ceremony is from the eastern fold. Such is the mood at the end of the twentieth century.

A mood can be a dangerous state of mind, because it can crush reason under the weight of feeling. But that is precisely what I believe postmodernism best represents–a mood."(Ravi Zacharias in Jesus among other Gods)

"Current interpretations of modernism vary. Some divide 20th century reaction into modernism and postmodernism, whereas others see them as two aspects of the same movement."(wikipedia) , mine being the latter.

I found that a university based divinity school was a very good place to do this

I'm sure these are great places to learn "modern" thought. The problems is that I see no reason to accept it. It's like trying to build a new and improved house without a foundation, or write novels without understanding fundamental grammar.