Religion may not survive the internet

[Topper]

I generally agree with this, but 2 Thess. is (to me) a pretty glaring example of saying pretty much the opposite thing of 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians urges righteous living because Christ could return any second "like a thief in the night" (5.2), and reminds the people to vigilance lest that Day take them unaware.
2 Thessalonians walks this back saying "Well, there's lots of other stuff that has to happen first, like the Apostasy and the appearance of the anti-Christ, and a bunch of fake miracles and signs, etc." (2.3-12) - things that don't appear in other Pauline letters, btw.

Sure, there are several ways to explain this, such as Paul trying to set the record straight because the people took his first letter too literally and quit their jobs to wait for Jesus (2 Thess 3.11-12), or maybe a (forged) letter has arrived claiming that Paul is dead or that Jesus has already returned (2 Thess. 2.1-2), or maybe Paul just got more information and wanted to pass that along, since 1 Thessalonians is believed to be the oldest surviving of Paul's letters.

While I find the thematic differences stark enough to distrust the authenticity of 2 Thess, for me the clincher is 2 Thess.'s assertion that the letter is genuine. It seems forced to me to point out "See! Look! Not a forgery!" (2 Thess 3.17).

Dammit. I waded in here again.

Thanks for reminding us very cogently.

[Solon]

Don't ever apologize for contributing to discussions like this.

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. Textual criticism can be interesting in small doses, but - like AA & pelagius said - it's really an intellectual house of cards based on logic & assumptions.
Too much effort on textual criticism, esp. the ultimately unanswerable questions of authorship, makes me want to poke out my eyes. Overall, I prefer content & theme.

It's the same with the Book of Mormon. The involved studies trying to prove different authorship-voices drive me nuts. There's far more to be unpacked (and more definitively, IMO) about what the texts actually say.
Thus my exclamation of dismay that I'd been sucked into a discussion on textual criticism.

Sincere thanks for the support, though.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. Textual criticism can be interesting in small doses, but - like AA & pelagius said - it's really an intellectual house of cards based on logic & assumptions.
Too much effort on textual criticism, esp. the ultimately unanswerable questions of authorship, makes me want to poke out my eyes. Overall, I prefer content & theme.

It's the same with the Book of Mormon. The involved studies trying to prove different authorship-voices drive me nuts. There's far more to be unpacked (and more definitively, IMO) about what the texts actually say.
Thus my exclamation of dismay that I'd been sucked into a discussion on textual criticism.

Sincere thanks for the support, though.

Gotcha. That makes sense.

[Topper]

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. Textual criticism can be interesting in small doses, but - like AA & pelagius said - it's really an intellectual house of cards based on logic & assumptions.
Too much effort on textual criticism, esp. the ultimately unanswerable questions of authorship, makes me want to poke out my eyes. Overall, I prefer content & theme.

It's the same with the Book of Mormon. The involved studies trying to prove different authorship-voices drive me nuts. There's far more to be unpacked (and more definitively, IMO) about what the texts actually say.
Thus my exclamation of dismay that I'd been sucked into a discussion on textual criticism.

Sincere thanks for the support, though.

This is why I love reading you thoughts. You've actually digested a lot of difficult to access information and re-organized it in an easy to understand manner. Einstein wrote something about being able to make complex matters simple is the sign of genius, which is something you possess.

[All-American]

I generally agree with this, but 2 Thess. is (to me) a pretty glaring example of saying pretty much the opposite thing of 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians urges righteous living because Christ could return any second "like a thief in the night" (5.2), and reminds the people to vigilance lest that Day take them unaware.
2 Thessalonians walks this back saying "Well, there's lots of other stuff that has to happen first, like the Apostasy and the appearance of the anti-Christ, and a bunch of fake miracles and signs, etc." (2.3-12) - things that don't appear in other Pauline letters, btw.

Sure, there are several ways to explain this, such as Paul trying to set the record straight because the people took his first letter too literally and quit their jobs to wait for Jesus (2 Thess 3.11-12), or maybe a (forged) letter has arrived claiming that Paul is dead or that Jesus has already returned (2 Thess. 2.1-2), or maybe Paul just got more information and wanted to pass that along, since 1 Thessalonians is believed to be the oldest surviving of Paul's letters.

While I find the thematic differences stark enough to distrust the authenticity of 2 Thess, for me the clincher is 2 Thess.'s assertion that the letter is genuine. It seems forced to me to point out "See! Look! Not a forgery!" (2 Thess 3.17).

Dammit. I waded in here again.

But to what extent is "walking back" a previous comment to be taken as proof of different authorship? By that token, we can be sure that Bruce R. McKonkie's last conference talk is also a pseudepigraph.

Yes, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul said stuff that made the Christians pack their bags and sell their houses. Very soon thereafter comes 2 Thessalonians, in which (fine, fine) the author says, "Woah, take it easy, fellas. Let me clarify. We've got a while to go. In fact, he's not coming back before an apostasy takes place."

Proof of pseudepigraphy? Enough there to keep a few academic careers alive, perhaps. But two things stand out: first, the VERY early date of the epistle-- before 60 AD-- and the fact that the Thessalonians had already gotten a letter from Paul not many years earlier. That leaves plenty of opportunities for suspicions to arise and to be confirmed-- perhaps even by Paul himself-- but the possessors of a previous genuine article accepted this one as authentic as well. Raises the question of what we think we know that they did not.

[Solon]

But to what extent is "walking back" a previous comment to be taken as proof of different authorship? By that token, we can be sure that Bruce R. McKonkie's last conference talk is also a pseudepigraph.

Yes, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul said stuff that made the Christians pack their bags and sell their houses. Very soon thereafter comes 2 Thessalonians, in which (fine, fine) the author says, "Woah, take it easy, fellas. Let me clarify. We've got a while to go. In fact, he's not coming back before an apostasy takes place."

Proof of pseudepigraphy? Enough there to keep a few academic careers alive, perhaps. But two things stand out: first, the VERY early date of the epistle-- before 60 AD-- and the fact that the Thessalonians had already gotten a letter from Paul not many years earlier. That leaves plenty of opportunities for suspicions to arise and to be confirmed-- perhaps even by Paul himself-- but the possessors of a previous genuine article accepted this one as authentic as well. Raises the question of what we think we know that they did not.

I don't disagree that it's possible that Paul wrote both, but I discredit Paul as the author of 2 Thess. for the reasons I wrote above. In addition, I believe that the early date of the two letters only bolsters the argument against Paul's authorship. I find it unlikely that Paul changed his mind so dramatically with respect to the Parousia in the brief period of time between the letters, and the eschatology of 2 Thess doesn't show up in other, later Pauline writings (but there are hints of the teachings from 1 Thess that the Arrival of Christ was imminent and that Paul would witness it - e.g. 1 Corinthians 15.51).

Either way, like I said above, I'm not really interested in this question as much as I'm interested in different questions posed by the content of the texts.

Classic apologetics only have to show that something is possible. It's an intellectual hustle.

[Uncle Ted]

How the Internet Is Taking Away America’s Religion


Using the Internet can destroy your faith. That’s the conclusion of a study showing that the dramatic drop in religious affiliation in the U.S. since 1990 is closely mirrored by the increase in Internet use.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3995[/ATTACH]

Back in 1990, about 8 percent of the U.S. population had no religious preference. By 2010, this percentage had more than doubled to 18 percent. That’s a difference of about 25 million people, all of whom have somehow lost their religion.


That raises an obvious question: how come? Why are Americans losing their faith?


Today, we get a possible answer thanks to the work of Allen Downey, a computer scientist at the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts, who has analyzed the data in detail. He says that the demise is the result of several factors but the most controversial of these is the rise of the Internet. He concludes that the increase in Internet use in the last two decades has caused a significant drop in religious affiliation.
[…]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...icas-religion/

[myboynoah]

Those people are going to be so sorry; kind of like the people banging on the door of the ark as the waters rose.

[SoonerCoug]

Those people are going to be so sorry; kind of like the people banging on the door of the ark as the waters rose.

You do realize that the ark story is bogus, don't you?

[New Mexican Disaster]

You do realize that the ark story is bogus, don't you?

How can it be? A movie came out about it last week.

[SoonerCoug]

I would love a moderate, thinking version of Mormonism. I believe it is possible to achieve if totalitarianism is done away with.

I have thought about attending the Community of Christ, but they are a little to Jesus-y for me.

[myboynoah]

You do realize that the ark story is bogus, don't you?

Doesn't matter. The imagery still applies.

[byu71]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...icas-religion/

As a person who highly values a belief in God and religion I see no harm in people on their own believing and not affiliating.

I believe in the going out for the 1 and leaving the 99 about as much as I believe in the literal Ark. Can you imagine if the 1 was Sooner or SU? Why bother trying to get them back in? They seem happy outside and complaining.