OT: The Theology Thread

[Sabres Fan in NS]

smj,

 

I agree that God is perfect.  I also agree that people are not perfect, we all sin.

 

Were we differ is that I do not believe Jesus (PBUH) was the son of God, which puts a human characteristic on a non-human, sent to earth to save us from sin by dying on the cross.  Why would God have to do that?

 

I believe that I have sinned and will continue to sin, as all people do.  Now some are better than others.  I believe, as all Muslims do, that if we ask God for forgiveness and try to be better we will, if it is His will, be forgiven, for He is most merciful.  So, I do that and do try hard, but the temptations of this life are, indeed, very tempting.

 

I also believe, as do most of my Christian friends, that good works do matter, so long as they are completed with the proper intention and not in an effort to seek God's favour.  I realize that Born Again Christians do not believe in this concept of good works as being important, as they believe that once you accept Jesus (PBUH) as your personal saviour that is all that matters.

 

In the end God will judge us all and my hope is that he is merciful upon us all.

 

I am enjoying reading your posts on this matter and I don't think we are that different in our views.

 

-----

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Salaam / Peace.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Sabres Fan In NS

[Drunkard]

 

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.

 

I am not talking about religion.  If there is not a higher being than where does morality come from?  There's no reasonable explanation for evolution to develop a new species saddled with moral dilemmas - it does not pass the logical test.  Why are we born with a moral compass if there is no creator?  And if there is a creator there must be a definitive truth about the creator - a higher being can't meet many different definitions.   

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?  No and it besides the point.  While I may have some capacity to make good choices like everyone it does not matter because I am not perfect.  I believe Romans 3:23.  For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.  I also believe John 3:16 For God so loved the world he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  

Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like?  I act that way because it is the only explanation I can buy for when things are like they are in this world. 

If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content?

if I knew it was not true what reason would I have to be anything other than self-absorbed and act in my own self-interest?  If there is right and wrong who defines it?  What right does anyone have to define it for anyone else?  And you can see where that leads. 

Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another. We are created in God's image which is why we have a moral compass.  Otherwise there is no difference between humans and animals.  Do you believe we have a soul?  That soul comes from somewhere and wouldn't evolve from nothing.  

 

I think basic morality comes from the golden rule, which doesn't require belief in a deity to follow. You say it fails the logic test but I think it's about as logical as logic gets which is leading to a bit of a straw man argument on your end.

 

Society is beneficial to humans, therefore living in groups provides safety in numbers, protection, and strength of the group. This is completely independent of the existence or need for an sort of higher being and many animals from baboons, to fish, to wolves, to lions, to gazelle, to elephants live this way without any requirement of belief in the supernatural.

 

Living in a group or society requires a certain code/set of rules that allow groups to function and thrive, otherwise the whole system could fall apart. It doesn't take belief in a deity to realize that I wouldn't want my wife or daughter to get raped and I wouldn't want to see my son get killed, and the majority of the other members in society feel the same way I do about their own families, so everyone agrees to follow the basic code/rules.

 

The benefit of remaining a member of the group is likely what motivates people to follow the rules, even if they don't have a wife, daughter, or son that could be harmed. Acting in your own self interests at peril to the group may help an individual in the short term, but it has the potential to harm them over a longer period. Steal the food of your neighbor, or do harm to him or his family and you risk punishment or banishment from the group, and you lose the benefits that come with that. Protection from predators, sharing in the spoils of the hunt, sharing/pooling of resources during lean times, having a chance to learn specialized skills rather than having to be a jack of all trades and do a little bit of everything to survive on your own, having an easier time to find a mate from within other members of the community, and so on.

 

That's why humans have lived in groups since long before there was religion. It happened independently of the belief in any sort of God.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Drunkard

[X. Benedict]

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.

 

 

There is no need. 

 

Most Catholics (scholarly ones, anyway) are pretty comfortable talking about natural law. Here many Atheists and Catholics have much common ground. Morality is derived from the common nature of being a human being.  Whether it is derived from Divine Providence or the empirical state of just being human hardly matters. It is objective and follows from rational principles.

 

Religion (or discipleship) is a different matter. Morality applies to all (and many atheists, agnostics, and pagans are or have been extremely moral people who wouldn't think of lying, killing, cheating, or stealing, for example).

 

The rules of religion, however, apply to the disciple. 

[LastPommerFan]

bump.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

When one looks at the so-called fundamentalists of any religion when they are discussing faith and theology they are probably not looking at the whole picture.

 

Not being critical here, but any reasonable discussion of religion should leave the fundamentalists (all of them) out of it, as they do not, in any way, represent a large part of any faith community.

[Drunkard]

Whiskey,

 

The problem with your previous statement in the politics thread is that it's not just the people from the creation museum who put saddles on the dinosaurs. If it was, it really wouldn't bother me so much.

 

There are actual cases that have happened such as the ones in Kansas, Florida, and Texas where there want to teach out right falsehoods like the young earth theories in schools during science classes instead of actual science, or they want to gice them equal time with actual science. While ridiculous on the surface it causes real damage by teaching kids factual falsehoods and wasting time that could be spent teaching actual science. ID is literally teaching creationism without using the word god and trying to hold it up as a scientific equal to natural selection without it meeting any of the actual scientific criteria.

[LastPommerFan]

I follow you, my point is only that these people doing these things are a minority. Loud minorities often have outsized political voices. These people upset me as well. In general, there are plenty of people of faith who not only accept, but advance science.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Most often the outspoken fundamentalists in any faith community are outspoken as they have a very definitive political agenda.  They never. ever, care about advancing their so-called faith, or religion, or making the world a kinder and gentler place.

[Drunkard]

I follow you, my point is only that these people doing these things are a minority. Loud minorities often have outsized political voices. These people upset me as well. In general, there are plenty of people of faith who not only accept, but advance science.

They are a minority but they have to power to cause serious damage to the educational system and that's why people like Bobby Henderson are needed to balance out the crazy.

[calti]

I have had a discussion before about the 3 "types" of word surrounding the Catholic Church. Much of the churches laws of conduct have been  changed over time, and unfortunately it was a long time ago we had the discussions  but a little of what I remember is.

 

Dogma.

 

The foundation or pillar of the church. Nicene Creed is an example of Dogmatic word of the church. Not to be debated. I look to it as the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Canon Law has 2 parts.

 

 Within Canon law is the Catholic version of the Bill of Rights. Just like with the Bill of Rights to make a change to it is almost impossible.

 

Then there are the rest of the laws.

 

It is a fully functioning legal system, with courts and trials and codes ect. It post dates Roman Law but pre dates any European law. Changes to the  laws happen, not like modern governments where it is yearly and often tax code changes. 

 

It's in the "rest" of the laws that separations began to form with in the Catholic Church to form the Church of England or Protestant Church. They are laws written by the Church through out the centuries. My understanding, is that these are mans laws based off of the teachings of Jesus (this is how things get touchy).

 

For many centuries Catholic Priests where allowed to get married. Then, boom, Canon Law says take a vow of celibacy.

No meat on Fridays during Lent, only fish.

 

2 examples of "other" laws that are well know and documented that are not the basis (the Bill of Rights) of the Church but are Canon Law and they can be rewritten (I wouldn't bet a penny in my life time).

 

I didn't have time today for this but it has been addicting. This discussion has brought a smile all day because I thought about morality and my believes and not the day to day grind. I also wanted to clarify myself, and I hope I did a good job by including examples of the U.S. laws, of what is undeniable to me (or so should be to all Christians), and why I can understand why much of Christianity sounds like a moral code for society.

 

I also wish to add a disclaimer, I am not a theologian and I consider myself far from one. These are my memories from asking  questions after reading something or from a sermon and getting answers from a few very wonderful Priests and a Protestant Minister.

 

Again,Thanks Drunkard.

FYI---There are presently married catholic priests. It is OK at this point for a priest to be married but not for a catholic priest to marry. Many Episcopal priests became Catholic and were allowed to stay married as they became catholic priests.

smj,

 

I agree that God is perfect.  I also agree that people are not perfect, we all sin.

 

Were we differ is that I do not believe Jesus (PBUH) was the son of God, which puts a human characteristic on a non-human, sent to earth to save us from sin by dying on the cross.  Why would God have to do that?

 

I believe that I have sinned and will continue to sin, as all people do.  Now some are better than others.  I believe, as all Muslims do, that if we ask God for forgiveness and try to be better we will, if it is His will, be forgiven, for He is most merciful.  So, I do that and do try hard, but the temptations of this life are, indeed, very tempting.

 

I also believe, as do most of my Christian friends, that good works do matter, so long as they are completed with the proper intention and not in an effort to seek God's favour.  I realize that Born Again Christians do not believe in this concept of good works as being important, as they believe that once you accept Jesus (PBUH) as your personal saviour that is all that matters.

 

In the end God will judge us all and my hope is that he is merciful upon us all.

 

I am enjoying reading your posts on this matter and I don't think we are that different in our views.

 

-----

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Salaam / Peace.

The Christian answer to that is that God so loved the world that he sent His only Son to die for our sins. He didn't 'have  to' do it.

[inkman]

Why, in the name of God,did I click on this thread.

Edited August 17, 2015 by inkman

[woods-racer]

FYI---There are presently married catholic priests. It is OK at this point for a priest to be married but not for a catholic priest to marry. Many.... Some Episcopal priests became Catholic and were allowed to stay married as they became catholic priests.

The Christian answer to that is that God so loved the world that he sent His only Son to die for our sins. He didn't 'have  to' do it.

 

Yes there are married Priests, but you almost answered your own questions, it's a rarity and not a common practice as it once was. The Bishop of that Parish decides whether or not an Episcopal Priest may become a Catholic Priest.

 

The Church made it a requirement once they figured out that it cost a lot to feed and board large families.  It was a pure money issue. Th Church  will be forced to change as they close very lucrative parishes because they don't have a Priest to fill it.  

 

Fun reading for those that venture, even Ink.

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy.htm

[calti]

Yes there are married Priests, but you almost answered your own questions, it's a rarity and not a common practice as it once was. The Bishop of that Parish decides whether or not an Episcopal Priest may become a Catholic Priest.

 

The Church made it a requirement once they figured out that it cost a lot to feed and board large families.  It was a pure money issue. Th Church  will be forced to change as they close very lucrative parishes because they don't have a Priest to fill it.  

 

Fun reading for those that venture, even Ink.

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy.htm

The reason for the discipline was to allow priests to focus on the parishioners because family men had their families to think of first.

The money explanation is just silly and what one would expect of a sight for atheists and agnostics.

[woods-racer]

The reason for the discipline was to allow priests to focus on the parishioners because family men had their families to think of first.

The money explanation is just silly and what one would expect of a sight for atheists and agnostics.

 

It is every bit a money issue. I have been asked to attend Diocesan planning seminars to review the closing of churches due to the lack of Priests. No atheists, just down to earth discussions. You want the Catholic Church's PC version of why the celibacy act, you gave it. They sure as heck are not going to tell the world it was all a money issue.

 

My dad grew up in South Buffalo. Back in his day a good education was only to be had at a private Catholic school (you public schoolers can debate this all you want but the Catholics where preached this). If you where from a large family the Church would expect that at least one male and one female member of the family would enter into the services to become a Priest or a Sister in exchange of a family education (this also meant College). My dad is 75 and the average age of a Priest is ~62. That practice ended with his generation and they've never been able to fill the rectories since. They are not looking for change all of a sudden in these planning seminars due to Priests' faith or commitment, but because they have figured out 35 % of all churches will be closed in 20 years due to no Priests. Change is happening because hundreds on millions of dollars are on the line.

At the same time they have initiated the Deacon program. A person with a bachelors degree can apply to the Church to gain admittance to their Deacon program. Over the course of 8 years the Church will give you an education (theology/ psychology) and in the ministries such as in prisons, hospitals and shelters enough to become a Deacon in the Catholic Church. But one caveat is you must sign a pledge that if your spouse passes  you can not remarry.  In essence they will make you a Priest with the passing of your wife, play the odds on that in your mind.  In  our Diocese's this past year 22 deacons and 2 Priests where ordained, we have ~120 parishes. Currently we have 118 active Priests, and ~10 Priests per year retiring because they are in their mid seventies. 

How long before some very wealthy parishes are run by a Deacon with the "waiting for a Priest" label?

 

The change back to allowing married Priests may take  a few generations to become fully accepted, but to the Church it will be a short time. Considering a major change to the Church may not happen again for a 1000 years.

[LGR4GM]

Because I really love John Oliver and this seemed relevant to this thread...

 

[woods-racer]

It is very relevant and personal to me Liger.

 

 

Those that prey on the old or dying, or with an illness, or for a kindness in their hearts for another sick or impoverished human or animal is one of the lowest forms of life in my opinion.

 

We live next to one of these disgusting people, and he calls himself a Preacher. It was nice that through humor Oliver was able to shed light on the predators. But I still look at my neighbor and believe that I would have no moral hangover if he ever shares one pointy word with me and I beat the ever living piss out him for who he cons his money from.

 

Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish or what ever your belief is, we each have a morality ingrained through years of education. My question is, if you possessed the strength allowing you to pick such a person up and slam then down across your knee all but breaking them in two (totally WWF style)....are you moral just for doing it and eliminating such a predator, or morally unjust for the harming of another human?

 

The preaching of the Catholic Church as I believe says It would be a morally unjust act, quite simply because the question that should always be asked is "what would Jesus do?" and I can't see Jesus pulling a wrestling move on someone and breaking them in two. But the "for the good of human kind" in me wants to break him.

 

I may have just crossed the line from theology thread to personal confessional.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[Drunkard]

It is very relevant and personal to me Liger.

 

 

Those that prey on the old or dying, or with an illness, or for a kindness in their hearts for another sick or impoverished human or animal is one of the lowest forms of life in my opinion.

 

We live next to one of these disgusting people, and he calls himself a Preacher. It was nice that through humor Oliver was able to shed light on the predators. But I still look at my neighbor and believe that I would have no moral hangover if he ever shares one pointy word with me and I beat the ever living piss out him for who he cons his money from.

 

Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish or what ever your belief is, we each have a morality ingrained through years of education. My question is, if you possessed the strength allowing you to pick such a person up and slam then down across your knee all but breaking them in two (totally WWF style)....are you moral just for doing it and eliminating such a predator, or morally unjust for the harming of another human?

 

The preaching of the Catholic Church as I believe says It would be a morally unjust act, quite simply because the question that should always be asked is "what would Jesus do?" and I can't see Jesus pulling a wrestling move on someone and breaking them in two. But the "for the good of human kind" in me wants to break him.

 

I may have just crossed the line from theology thread to personal confessional.

Bill Maher brought up the same dilemma when Bin Laden was killed. According to the New Testament acts like that shouldn't happen and shouldn't be celebrated by people who follow the teachings of Jesus and try to emulate his works and way of thinking/acting.

 

As an atheist I have no such requirements so I happily celebrated the death of Bin Laden and would celebrate the demise of people like that who prey on the sick, stupid, and/or old. It makes me wish there was a God just so I could see what happens to the folks who abuse it for their own selfish needs. I would especially like to see how the ones from Westboro Baptist Church or even the guys like Swaggert and Haggert who exemplify the epitome of hypocrisy.

[Patty16]

Bill Maher brought up the same dilemma when Bin Laden was killed. According to the New Testament acts like that shouldn't happen and shouldn't be celebrated by people who follow the teachings of Jesus and try to emulate his works and way of thinking/acting.

 

As an atheist I have no such requirements so I happily celebrated the death of Bin Laden and would celebrate the demise of people like that who prey on the sick, stupid, and/or old. It makes me wish there was a God just so I could see what happens to the folks who abuse it for their own selfish needs. I would especially like to see how the ones from Westboro Baptist Church or even the guys like Swaggert and Haggert who exemplify the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

 

Bc for many, it's about being part of the group, a group that they view as superior to others.  And when it comes to actually following the word in the text, or even its themes, well that just not as important.  (this is in no way aimed at anyone on this thread, just in general)

 

Maher has a point when it comes to killing and the death penalty, that the very religious shouldn't be in favor of this based on the scripture, yet the most religious are most likely to support it.   

[LastPommerFan]

NS, do the apostles appear in the Qur'an? If so, what is their role in Islam? 

 

Also, Mary Magdalene appears in the Gospels more than most of the Apostles, does she appear in Islamic Texts?

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Bc for many, it's about being part of the group, a group that they view as superior to others.  And when it comes to actually following the word in the text, or even its themes, well that just not as important.  (this is in no way aimed at anyone on this thread, just in general)

 

Maher has a point when it comes to killing and the death penalty, that the very religious shouldn't be in favor of this based on the scripture, yet the most religious are most likely to support it.   

 

There is a very clear scripture basis for the Just War Theory as outline in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the Death Penalty it says the following:

 

 

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

 

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

 

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

 

That last sentence was very recently emphasized by Pope Francis. In the case of Bin Laden, I think it is realistic that all of the requirements above were met. That his death was the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against his aggression.

 

We are called to seek peace in all situations. This is not an excuse to ignore problems and dangers, but a challenge to find solutions that may be more complicated and difficult than the basic human instinct to solve problems with violence. If alternatives can not be found, and the bar is exceptionally high for this to be the case, then war and/or death can, in rare instances, be justified.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Whiskey Bottle of Emotion

[Drunkard]

Bc for many, it's about being part of the group, a group that they view as superior to others.  And when it comes to actually following the word in the text, or even its themes, well that just not as important.  (this is in no way aimed at anyone on this thread, just in general)

 

Maher has a point when it comes to killing and the death penalty, that the very religious shouldn't be in favor of this based on the scripture, yet the most religious are most likely to support it.

I agree. Evangelicals in particular seem to love to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow but the most surprising thing to me is that more often than not, they seem to favor passages in the Old Testament particularly when it comes to stances on homosexuality, war, helping the poor, roles of women, etc. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality and they lays on the hippie stuff pretty thick about helping the poor, turning the other cheek, love your enemies, and all that jazz. You would think Christians would place a greater weight/emphasis on the New Testament since it's about Jesus and they aspire to be Christ-like, but they only seem to do that when it suits them such as ignoring the parts about working on the Sabbath, wearing clothing made out of two fabrics, and things of that nature.

 

Bill Maher did another bit about Jesus is a liberal and God the Father is the Republican because he'll smoke your ass if you screw up.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

NS, do the apostles appear in the Qur'an? If so, what is their role in Islam? 

 

Also, Mary Magdalene appears in the Gospels more than most of the Apostles, does she appear in Islamic Texts?

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

There is a very clear scripture basis for the Just War Theory as outline in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the Death Penalty it says the following:

 

 

That last sentence was very recently emphasized by Pope Francis. In the case of Bin Laden, I think it is realistic that all of the requirements above were met. That his death was the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against his aggression.

 

We are called to seek peace in all situations. This is not an excuse to ignore problems and dangers, but a challenge to find solutions that may be more complicated and difficult than the basic human instinct to solve problems with violence. If alternatives can not be found, and the bar is exceptionally high for this to be the case, then war and/or death can, in rare instances, be justified.

 

As far as I know (I have read the Qur'an many times, but certainly am no expert) the companions of Jesus (PBUH) are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all.  It does address the followers of the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) as being true believers and rightly guided, both in his time and since his time.  It does also say that along the way there were misguided men that altered the scripture (the Gospels) from what was originally revealed to Jesus (PBUH).  And, to my knowledge Mary Magdalene is not mentioned in the Qur'an at all.  There is an Sura (Chapter) of the Qur'an that is entitled Miriam (Mary) and is, primarily, about Mary the mother (whom we Muslims revere as an extremely righteous and pious woman) of Jesus (PBUH).

 

As far as war and killing the Qur'an is very clear that it should be only as a last resort, but is justifiable if it is done in the way and in the name of Allah (God). Therefore, most Muslims would say that the killing of Osama bin Laden was justifiable and warranted, since most believe he was acting against Allah and against humanity.  In spite of what the media perpetuates, a vast majority of Muslims around the world do not support the likes of bin Laden and terrorists.  Most believe that such actions and the so-called Jihad (the way it is used in the media is a gross misrepresentation of the word) movement is not in keeping with Islam.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think Bill Maher is funny more often than not (he used to be way funnier though before he turned so hard left), but I don't think he should exactly he cited as some authority on religion vs non-religion. He's quite militaristic about the whole thing.

Edited August 18, 2015 by TrueBluePhD

[Weave]

I think Bill Maher is funny more often than not (he used to be way funnier though before he turned so hard left), but I don't think he should exactly he cited as some authority on religion vs non-religion. He's quite militaristic about the whole thing.

 

 

Agreed.

[Drunkard]

I think Bill Maher is funny more often than not (he used to be way funnier though before he turned so hard left), but I don't think he should exactly he cited as some authority on religion vs non-religion. He's quite militaristic about the whole thing.

Whether you love him, hate him, or feel indifferent about him he raises some good points though and I tend to agree that if Jesus was an American living today he'd be more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. The only issue I can see him siding with the R's on is abortion but by sheer numbers that pales in comparison with respect to lives lost when you consider their other platforms are being pro gun, pro capital punishment, pro war, and cutting entitlements for old and poor people in favor of tax cuts that predominantly go to the wealthy. From his book he seems to have much more socialist tendencies.

 

My other statement about Evangelicals and their apparent preference for the old testament over the new ones didn't come from Maher, it's just something I've wondered. I've asked a few Evangelical types the same question and tey always just seem to dodge the question.

[LastPommerFan]

Whether you love him, hate him, or feel indifferent about him he raises some good points though and I tend to agree that if Jesus was an American living today he'd be more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. The only issue I can see him siding with the R's on is abortion but by sheer numbers that pales in comparison with respect to lives lost when you consider their other platforms are being pro gun, pro capital punishment, pro war, and cutting entitlements for old and poor people in favor of tax cuts that predominantly go to the wealthy. From his book he seems to have much more socialist tendencies.

 

My other statement about Evangelicals and their apparent preference for the old testament over the new ones didn't come from Maher, it's just something I've wondered. I've asked a few Evangelical types the same question and tey always just seem to dodge the question.

 

Evangelical churches are often built on the personality of a preacher, as opposed to older more enduring denominations with centuries (eg Lutherans) or millennia (Catholics) of theological development. It's not surprising to me that you find their positions inconsistent.