Cosmology

Ah, the Evangelical worldview. I have recently become rather intimately acquainted with this peculiar manner of thought in the most uncomfortable fashion. After posting a note on Facebook that was primarily concerned with how theological development has dramatically altered the New Testament's portrayal of the person of Jesus of Nazareth over many centuries, I expected some productive discourse on history and theology and the like. What I did not at all expect was a grotesque display of dogmatic yelling from what I will refer to as the "Bible-believing peanut gallery". On more than one occasion I was condemned to hell for my heresy and once witnessed the "casting pearls before swine" teaching used as an allegory. . .guess who the pig was?
Now, I would completely understand contemptuous anger if I had renounced my faith and called Christianity a hoax. But that was not what I accomplished in publishing that note. In fact, my note was a mere echo of a dialogue that has been going on for a very long time. Most scholars do not hold to the antiquated and indeed unnecessary doctrine of biblical inerrancy. . .however, that very idea (along with infallibility, an idea connoting some sort of supreme trustworthiness) is integral to the suvival of "Bible-believing" Evangelical Christians. For them, believing their interpretation of the Christian Bible (which is entirely ignorant of its historical context and makes every effort to incorporate those scriptures into its neat, comfortable paradigm) is the one and only manner of participation in salvation. They have what Marcus Borg calls a conscious literalism, in which they continually put a spin on their interpretation that will satisfy (it satisfies them. . .not the thinking person) the obvious historical and scientific problems with inerrancy.
So, certain people chose to ignore the more-or-less scholarly nature (I make no pretense of great knowledge. . .I call it scholarly because it appeals to the scholarly conscious) of my note and mounted a counter-attack to what they believed to be not only an attack on their faith, but on the Bible itslef!
This led me to several conclusions. Primarily, evangelical Christianity is exclusive toward other ideologies. This is of course the case with many religions, but what is unbearable for me is the hatred that accompanied many of the comments. Christianity is supposed to be a faith of love! Oh well, I imagine that I should have expected as much.
Something else I perceived was the complete and unabating ignorance of scholarship existing outside tired and re-affirmed orthodox Christian apologetics. These people thought that they were providing sound arguments, but their thoughts were confined to English translations of the biblical text. . .except for C.S. Lewis, this was all they quoted from. That, my friends, is circular logic. . .No! It's worse! It is using ancient biblical text (which was primarily concerned with metaphorical truth, not factual truth when composed so long ago) to support the validity of the factuality of that very same text! How incredibly provincial!
Also, there was such blatant hyprocrisy to be found. Concern for my spiritual well-being and this "dark path" that I have wandered onto was the focus of many comments. . .but there was no patience. . .no careful explanation to augment sincere worry. These "voices of concern" were alongside scathing denouncements and self-righteous pontification.
I cannot help but believe that the evangelical tradition is more dangerous than I have previously perceived it. What does that mean for me? I grew up in that mess. . .