The evangelical problem

[_subgenius]

i have always been a proponent of the idea that one should read the scriptures and decide for oneself.

Satan's use of Scripture in tempting Jesus is clear indication that a merely cognitive level of biblical literacy does not automatically result in the formation of a Christian character.
There was a corresponding shift from the Bible to Jesus, as more and more Christians came to believe that the key test of Christian faithfulness was not the affirmation of a creed or catechism, or knowledge of the biblical text, but the capacity to claim an emotional relationship with what Prothero calls "an astonishingly malleable Jesus--an American Jesus buffeted here and there by the shifting winds of the nation's social and cultural preoccupations."
The most important shift, according to Prothero, was the shift from theology to morality. The nondenominationalist trend among Protestants tended to avoid doctrinal conflicts by searching for agreements in the moral realm. Christian socialists, such as Charles Sheldon, taught us to ask not "What does the Bible say?" but "What would Jesus do?" Advocates of the Social Gospel, such as Walter Rauschenbusch, taught that it was more important to care for the poor than to memorize the Apostles' Creed.
http://www.modernreformation.org/defaul ... d&var5=110

Christians schooled in an anti-intellectual, common-denominator evangelistic approach to faith rely upon business and consumer models to provide strategies for growth, and not to more substantial doctrine.
Other negative points of the modern day Evangelical (to highlight a few):
1. The Prosperity Gospel and the glorification of unchecked pragmatic entrepreneurship.
2. Lack of cohesive leadership and a rising chaos of its theology
3. Shift to "audience only" church participation
4. Joel Osteen
5. Substitution of entertainment for Biblical preaching
6. Erosion of Gospel principles in its Doctrine.
7. No actual evangelical "history" within the Church.
8. A majority of members seemingly required to be apathetic and uninformed.
9. and as one author has eloquently pointed out:

The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace too ordinary, his judgment too benign, his gospel too easy, and his Christ is too common
-David Wells

Does this obvious corrosive nature of modern day evangelicals simply serve as self-destructive mechanism or has it infected Christianity as a "whole"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTEU_e2qS1U

[_Drifting]

What's this got to do with Mormonism?
(It's a Mormon discussion board after all)

[_subgenius]

What's this got to do with Mormonism?
(It's a Mormon discussion board after all)

is there a relation between Mormons and Evangelicals? Is the evangelical problem infecting the Mormon church?
I would consider any modern Christian issue to be relevant to the Church.

[_Buffalo]

What's problematic for Mormons, Modern Christians and early Christians is that none of them understood who Satan is. Satan, when properly understood in the earliest scriptures about him, is merely a servant of the great El, God of Israel. Satan is not wicked or interested in thwarting El. Everything Satan does is by order of El.

[_subgenius]

What's problematic for Mormons, Modern Christians and early Christians is that none of them understood who Satan is. Satan, when properly understood in the earliest scriptures about him, is merely a servant of the great El, God of Israel. Satan is not wicked or interested in thwarting El. Everything Satan does is by order of El.

Granted, many are unaware of the "accuser" turned "fallen angel", but that point may simply reinforce my original notion above about Bible literacy and the shift away from the actual "words" of God.
So, i agree, in general, with your ponit here, but it seems to support my thesis above.

[_Buffalo]

What's problematic for Mormons, Modern Christians and early Christians is that none of them understood who Satan is. Satan, when properly understood in the earliest scriptures about him, is merely a servant of the great El, God of Israel. Satan is not wicked or interested in thwarting El. Everything Satan does is by order of El.

Granted, many are unaware of the "accuser" turned "fallen angel", but that point may simply reinforce my original notion above about Bible literacy and the shift away from the actual "words" of God.
So, i agree, in general, with your ponit here, but it seems to support my thesis above.

You're right about the evangelicals - and they're right about you, too. In other words, neither of you got it right.

[_subgenius]

You're right about the evangelicals - and they're right about you, too. In other words, neither of you got it right.

no real revelation of your opinion here....but since we are here.....your latter point may be incorrect...everything the accuser "did" was by order of El - what about Job 2:3?
"Then the LORD said to Satan.......though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason"
was the end of this verse supposed to include "according to my direction"?

maybe you are just a bigger fan of Mastema? or is it just the mainstream Christian views of Ezek 28 and Isaiah 14 that you find contention with?

[_Buffalo]

You're right about the evangelicals - and they're right about you, too. In other words, neither of you got it right.

no real revelation of your opinion here....but since we are here.....your latter point may be incorrect...everything the accuser "did" was by order of El - what about Job 2:3?
"Then the LORD said to Satan.......though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason"
was the end of this verse supposed to include "according to my direction"?

maybe you are just a bigger fan of Mastema? or is it just the mainstream Christian views of Ezek 28 and Isaiah 14 that you find contention with?

This summarizes it well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Job.27s_Satan

Job's Satan

In the Book of Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person "who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the divine council meets, God informs ha-Satan about Job's blameless, morally upright character. Between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5, ha-Satan merely points out that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; if all Job has been given, even his health, were to be taken away from him, however, his faith would collapse. God therefore grants ha-Satan the chance to test Job.[11] Due to this, it has been interpreted that ha-Satan is under God's control and cannot act without God's permission. This is further shown in the epilogue of Job in which God is speaking to Job, ha-Satan is absent from these dialogues. "For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the narrator, it is ultimately Yahweh himself who is responsible for Job's suffering; as Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [7]

[_subgenius]

....Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [7]

not disputing the cause of Job's suffering, but rather your assertion that Satan is (still) an agent of God. The "You have incited me" phrase leads me to a different conclusion. Where it seems that your position is that God should have spoken the phrase thusly - "You have incited me, per my instruction, against him, to destroy him for no reason, as i planned."

[_Buffalo]

....Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [7]

not disputing the cause of Job's suffering, but rather your assertion that Satan is (still) an agent of God. The "You have incited me" phrase leads me to a different conclusion. Where it seems that your position is that God should have spoken the phrase thusly - "You have incited me, per my instruction, against him, to destroy him for no reason, as i planned."

Ha Satan was acting in his divinely appointed role, regardless of the results. Or do you think that Satan comes off worse than Yahweh in this story?