Fake News and the Death of Christianity: Western Christianity's demise greatly exaggerated

American Thinker ^ | 09/09/2017 | Mike Konrad

[HiTech RedNeck]

What’s all this arch-toned talk of yours? Where did you locate any sort of contradiction?

Sounds to me like the distressed widows and orphans might be better off without you. Because that just happens to be how God operates and here you are denying it in a grand quibble.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And frankly have you heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? Two non contradictory statements can both be true but the quibbler will fix on one and deny the other. This is one of the way the devil has fun, fun, fun with Christendom. I hope you drop the archness and learn some wisdom someday.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh and have you checked the context and the Greek?

The term used here could also be translated “godliness.” This is a practical test of Christian godliness. Do good to those in need who cannot repay you, purely.

The tone I am getting from you is such that you’d be scolding the widows and orphans for not meeting the exact formula you have arbitrarily seized on.

What we see here is the difference between some bible in your head and Christ in your heart.

[HiTech RedNeck]

What we were talking about here is the sense of the word “religion” as it is commonly used in the world.

The biblical usage (in SOME translations) is duly noted. If you accept a Christian context then you need a way to translate the concept of Christian godliness. Now obviously we cannot use this same term about Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. without noting the different meaning.

Ah, how a quibble by the unwise, pressed archly, can gratuitously destroy a discussion.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And the world will commonly come at Christianity as another variety of “religion” as it understands it.

It’s important to emphasize as an answer to that worldview that it isn’t applicable. Christianity’s core belief set wasn’t philosophized up, a characteristic that is not true of “world religions.” This is focused on a unique divine revelation, often mimicked, never equaled.

Once we have gotten by this pons asinorum about the world’s idea of religion we can explain this special biblical usage. It refers to the characteristics of practice of faith in this unique Person, the Lord. The Greek supports “godliness” as a more literal rendition and I aver it even makes better sense when using the scripture to witness to unbelievers. These little in-house fights don’t support that mission.

[rx]

It wasn’t arched or haughty. I’m sorry that it seemed to come across to you that way.

[rx]

The tone I am getting from you is such that you’d be scolding the widows and orphans for not meeting the exact formula you have arbitrarily seized on.

Wow. That's surely very far from what my thought about it all was.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well you sure rushed to judgment about the context and delivered a lecture based on that.

If it wasnt arch or haughty — well you sure could have fooled me.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yes, truth will out. How about reading what Proverbs has to say about what you did.

[rx]

"The term used here could also be translated “godliness.'

As I feared, what you've said is rather far from the truth--though I don't say that in a condescending tone. Although there may be some outlying translation--somewhere--that uses the term 'godliness', that word is not even to be found among any of the top eight or so main English language translations of the four NT passages where it's used. The Greek is 'threskeia' (θρησκεία). It refers to the outer trappings of religious ceremony (-ies). That's also the context of its Septuagint usage as it refers to the Jews' exercising their religion.

I believe James and God were using θρησκεία in those four NT verses (Jas. 1:26, 27; Acts 26:5 and Col 2:18) to show a contrast of how religious worship was to be different under the new dispensation (post-crucifixion, cf. OT LXX Deut. 6:4, Deut. 26, 2 Chron. 6-8; Ps 60, 79, 80), where we have a new a royal priesthood of all believers, not just laity that have no direct part in religious ceremony.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “The term used here could also be translated ‘godliness.’ “ <<

No the faintest chance!

Throughout the scriptures, “religion” is man’s rejection of YHVH’s way.

When Paul told the Athenian pagans that he saw that they were very “religious,” he was not praising them.

Religion, be it Phariseeism, or Nicolaitanism, or paganism is always rejection of what our creator gave us.
.

[HiTech RedNeck]

But this isn’t outer trappings in general. The context is all wrong for that. It’s a logical outworking of Christ in specific.

At best you have an example of a semantic quibble. Your own analysis shows that your original assertions were out of context — and this was asserted in a superior air. Godliness works better here to convey the sense. Calling it religion is to risk having it understood through worldly eyes. The discourse I used is one commonly used to explain to unbelievers. And it works. Because it’s at their level.

Be careful when you try to use the bible as a lexicon of the world. You can fail spectacularly.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well you miss the point from the other end. That’s not what the passage is referring to. It’s referring to a specifically Christian manifestation.

Dear Lord what did I do to deserve these two wise guys?

[editor-surveyor]

.
Your limited cognition is, as usual in the way of communication.

I didn’t say it was the subject passage.

Religion is never “Godliness” anywhere in the word.

I know you have a big love for “Roll yer own” worship, but its not a substitute for simple obedience.
.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And I notice that little snide superior fillip “as I feared.”

Cut out the condescending tone and just try to understand what I was getting at, how about it?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ah, you DID have to make it personal too.

Well, many are the trials of the righteous.

You go argue with rx. I’m outta here!

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Well, many are the trials of the righteous.” <<

Unlikely that you’ll ever find out.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
There was absolutely nothing snide in rx’s “tone.”

Arrogance always seems to perceive educators as snide.
.

[rx]

HTRN: "But this isn’t outer trappings in general. The context is all wrong for that. It’s a logical outworking of Christ in specific.

Hello. Your scholarship is looking more and more to be as earlier portrayed. That is, far afield from mainline thinking. I'd listen to alternate views if they contained something insightful, based on reasonable scholarship, but just making things up and insisting upon them absent substantiation just doesn't seem a wise course. From where does this notion of threskeia's ever including the idea of godliness come, particularly in light of the reasonably narrow set of biblical examples?

It really does sound as if someone ran with an well-intentioned idea they thought would preach, then proceeded off the rails.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Where’s your own Christ knowledge? You’re leaning on dry scholarly quibbles which have yet to save a single soul or get them even close to a living Lord.

No wonder that even when you “win” you lose. We are on vastly different planes.