Ask a Christian Theologian

[npc255]

Why were just those for picked then if they were all inspired, and if the Church centuries later 'made a cut' I don't think the OP would consider that cut valid.

The logic would be that you only needed the four and the letters. Actually, I've never heard the argument that this "only 4 of the 12" mattered in the least so I'm a little confused why it's so hard to accept. Also FUN FACT! Luke wrote one of the Gospels and he was not one of the original 12/13 (Judas the betrayer was replaced)
Edit: Sorry, I forgot to mention this. Max better allow it to be valid because all versions of the Christian Bible were derived from a meeting of Catholic church leaders in the 4th centuary. Even Luther gave them props for that.

If it's metaphorical, it's not a prediction in the sense of a prediction that requires foreknowledge.

If I believed that this was definitely a direct reference to being crucified or being pierced by a spear, I wouldn't have given you a way out. Isaiah did predict a lot of other things though, like that people would gamble over His clothes, He'd be spat on and beaten, He wouldn't defend Himself against accusations despite being innocent and He'd be buried in a rich man's tomb.

 

[npc255]

Okay so the pope won't back me on this. That isn't too surprising (sorry).

Edit:

...

Think we got our lines crossed--I'm asking the OP specifically about these things on the basis of his statement that the Bible was 'changed' by Catholics and Mormons and therefore aren't Christians.

Oh, well, he's wrong whether he admits it or not. Catholics were Christian way before it was popular (and while it was incredibly unpopular not to mention secularly stupid)

 

[maximilian]

why did you decide to be religious?

I felt convicted by God through experience, the Bible and then repented through prayer.

You know what? I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall, so I'm going to end it with one final statement.

Do you know what I consider the difference between myself and Christians like our dear Max? We're both horrible people, but Max and his ilk hide behind the words of 2000 year-old, prejudiced old men. I look in the mirror and I see a terrible person.

Christianity is a cult, albeit an extremely old and massive one. I'm sick of seeing people deluded to the point where they can't see the contradictions in their own faith.

The point wasn't to argue. You came here with the intention of ripping me to threads. I was hoping to be a helpful guide to Christianity. You wanted war. When I'm not willing to give up my faith at the drop of a hat on some net forum, I'm called a brick wall. Cool. Similarly, I don't see myself doing anything of detriment to anyone. Think of me as some abrasiveness surface (that you have sought by posting in this thread).

I was just hoping that for once a thread could be lead by someone with a reasoned perspective rather than blind faith.

I studied at one of the best universities in the world. I can hold my own in academic discussion. I've been replying for the last 5 hours and it's 5 am. What reasoned perspective do you want? What answer fits your bill of that theologian just before the bell curve? I've endured blazing insults for the last 5 pages (and that's fine, I'm down it it even though I expressly asked against it in the OP) and I think I'm doing pretty well.

Isn't God showing himself to SaulPaul a forceful conversion enough? Is Saul a special exception to the Faith requirement that Jesus preaches about?

Actually, I always wanted to talk about this with strangers on the internet. I don't think Saul was actually "converted" in the way we take it. He did a 180 degree turn, yes, but when I read it, he comes off to me as trying to do God's will. The problem was he was a Jew and the people he trusted most told him God's will was to kill non-believers. The allegedly forceful conversion was more of God saying "don't trust them, trust me," which is what Saul always wanted.

Also: People aren't so much inherently "evil" so much as inherently "tainted." Nothing unclean can enter so that's good enough, I guess. But tainted means that you are a lot more likely to do evil and strictly speaking, according to a Christian, only two sinless people have ever existed: one was God (Jesus) and the other required divine intervention (Mary) If you want to know why he didn't save everyone like He saved Mary, I can't answer that. It's important to note that this implies that Noah and Lot had sinned as well. The difference was that they wanted to do what God wanted, not that they were perfect. The other people didn't care about God so He decided to start over.

From what I can tell of my tiny theological studies, your final fate seems less of God telling you "You failed. Go to hell." and more of you saying "I can't stand you God. Where can I go to get away from you?" and God sighing and pointing you to hell. This is an important distinction because it implies that the people who enter heaven were always known (God being omniscient and all) but that they picked their fate. Free will and events in stone co-exist all the time so it's not as big of a deal as it sounds. For example, no matter how much you think you should've had waffles today, you can't change the fact that you had cereal for breakfeast. Anyways the point I was making was that God tries to convert everyone to love Him but not everyone agrees. He just happens to know which ones will say yes.

Please start a Catholic thread, this is work enough. Mary is not divine, it doesn't say it anywhere in the Bible. Saul was a forced conversion, read Romans 9. Everyone is all inherently evil, read Romans. Similarly, we have no free will, it's never mentioned once in the Bible and it conflicts with the idea of a sovereign God and Romans 9 (aswell as hundreds of other predestinarian verses). I appreciate the sentiment but this is complex enough.

I'm sorry, my dear sir, but "validity of faith" and "what Christians believe" is inherently intertwined. Besides, here is nothing here that says I can't inquire upon the actual motivations behind your religion. Please do me the courtesy to specify what the written beliefs of Christians and to differentiate those from your own personal opinions.

You can't say I haven't read your OP thoroughly now.

No it isn't. You can ask "what does the cross mean in Christianity?" or "where the crusades Christian?" without going the "that's stupid" route. I don't mind if you inquire, but don't bother trying to prove them wrong. They don't effect you, they effect us. For all this claims of Christians wanting to convert and restrict everybody, YOU came to this thread, and YOU are the one arguing against christianity as though I'm saying that this is YOUR truth, when I've made it clear I'm just saying what Christians (bible) think. Similarly, my opinions are from the Bible. I'd be doing an intellectual disservice to my faith otherwise. And for all this naysaying, noone is actually pointing to anything and saying "you've gone too far there". My strict theological convictions (the fundamentalist ones) so far seem present in my simple recount of what I believe with regards to the bible and why.

Post

NOTE: You dislike the logic of the God in the Bible. Not me. I can't make him anymore "logical" to you. You either believe that that is the way it is or you don't. Don't shoot the messenger. I can only read the message itself. And I'm not editing the message so you don't shoot me either. That's the whole point of why people AREN'T Christian. Similarly, I'd like to point out that I'm fairly successful in life, love and job. I have influence and lots of multicreed friends. I'm not a backward, insane, socially awkward, psycho. If you met me in real life, chance are we'd get on.

Similarly, please consider why I'm actually doing this. I'm taking heaps of time to painstakingly progress post by post, wading through lots of disparaging personal insults and people attacking my world view in order to explain where Christian ideas and beliefs come from. I'm trying to to this service for a forum of people who largely seem fascinated with Christianity and often are ignorant of actual Biblical teachings.

Sure, you're not going to agree with the Bible and therefore, you're going to find the things I write incredibly frustrating at times. I know this. But please, leave your passion and vitriol at the door and aim to go away with information ABOUT Christianity (whether you like it or dislike it) and not to beat down by and large the sole defender of the opposing world view.

It's 6 am here. I've been replying since 1 am. I'm going to bed. I'll get back to replies when I get up. It's usually a pleasure to reply to posters, even though they can sometimes be a bit overly snarky and angry.

Anyway, cheers.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

actually the phrase "amongst the dead" has nothing to do with actual physical death, it's something in use today, when you disown a relative they have been "cast among the dead" it is also a phrase used to signify that someone is not in your particular group, so by bringing them into your group you are "raising them from amongst the dead"

there is also a few other references in there but i've already sworn to not reveal those secrets

Ummm. What about him being ill and on the verge of dead? Or was he just hanging with a great aunt? That seems like awful selective reading to me.

ahh but see now you're ducking the question, it's not selective reading it's understanding the terminology, it's an odd phrase that isn't used much

and i get to have Neil Diamond and the Jazz Singer as reference here, he is "dead" to his dad

actually 3 are very similar and the fourth is something totally different

Similar in what way? What does this add to anything?

similar in the respects that it's basically 3 versions reworded

really so then why when they wrote the bible did the Roman emperor at the time have 12 different gospels to choose from and he picked 4 cause he liked the number 4?

i'd say they removed 8 that cast Jesus in a different light, such as being mortal

Got any proof?

yeah there's tons of it, try reading some history on your own religion

actually wrong again, there is more than enough proof to show he was an Essene, considering James his brother was one and the leader of them as well

What proof? I'm sorry, but you use no arguments any logical, empiricist atheist would ever use.

ok so you'll use some truthiness to say i'm wrong

actually again there's a lot of proof to this, if again you bother to read some history

actually the resurrection story of Mithras IS identical to the one of Jesus, the excuse given by early christians was the the devil copied the story of Jesus and time travelled back and created the story of Mithras to disprove the story of Jesus

So where did you get this information from? And there are PLENTY stories of resurrection and saviour sons. I'm talking about the biblical narrative in which the person of Jesus makes sense.

once again read history of your own religion and you'll find it. it's not too hard to find the answers to those questions

yes but Islamic religions put him on the same pedestal as Jesus, one christian sect actually worships John instead of Jesus, also for Jesus to be an earthly ruler in those times he'd need a heavenly rulers born 6 months before him on the summer solstice, such as John the Baptist

Sorry, what? Why do I care about cults and Islam? Or why the solstice is binding or this bizarre rule regarding the solstice?

oh so you were so ready to say "oh they had to include old religions" but when i put in proof of it, you say it's some sort of mumbo jumbo and yet you still celebrate those holidays with no idea WHY you do it

ahh but see the Essenes believed they needed 3 rulers, one heavenly, one earthly and the divine,

one is born on the winter solstice
one is born on the summer solstice
the last is eternal

You're arguing against Christianity, in a non argument thread, with a supposed superimposition of Essene belief onto the top of Christianity in order to argue against what? If you're convinced Christianity is Essene, then what am I meant to be doing in reply? Also, what do you believe?

actually why would i have to super impose it if they are both the same thing? i'm just explaining to you where your own beliefs come from and why those 2, who are very prominent in your religion, get all their power and notoriety from

8. how come Jesus was 40 years old before he decided to enter Jerusalem for the last time, which is also an overtly pagan thing to do as it is related to a venus cycle?

All evidence points to Jesus being 33 when he died. Ipso facto he wasn't 40 when entering Jerusalem.

actually no it points to him being 40, as most theories say he wasn't born in the year 0

if he wasn't 40 then he couldn't be divine, might have been why the Jews didn't recognize him

even the Prophet Mohammed was 40 when he started up Islam, Moses and Abraham too

[/quote] Oh good, so you're making up the rules of Christianity based on divine numbers. Also, his age is irrespective in context.
[/quote]

actually i'm not making up rules, these are things that are in the bible, the number 40 and it's various multiples are littered throughout the bible, it's one of the most important numbers in the book, i'd say even more so than the number 3

it has to do with the divinity of the number 40 and it's various meanings and what Jesus and his followers were trying to do

Well I'm baffled. Care to enlighten me to the source of all this? And why no real intellectuals hold to it?

actually most ppl don't really understand it, as the symbols for it are the pentagram, the bullhorns and the 5 petaled rose

it is a venus cycle and as i've said before it's littered throughout the bible, the Torah and the Qumran

yes but Jesus would totally know what the metal sign is and would be more friendly to ppl who flashed it and wore a pentagram then those that ran away from it

Where did you get this information?

due to the fact that i actually KNOW what it means not what "popular" culture says it

easy i'm guessing they found some old religious text and copied it, changing the names where it was needed

Ummmmm. You realise how impossible that would be what with oh, the Jews? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Also, how did they predict the crucifixion?[

[/quote]

again read the story of Mithras and what happened to him

I believe the Bible is God's word, and when you adapt it, add to it or change it you warp it and you're doing something that isn't Christianity. Whether that be Mormonism, Catholicism etc.

see this is an interesting statement simply because the bible you are saying is "the holy word of god" has been adapted MANY MANY times, not withstanding problems with translating from aramaic to greek to latin to english and the various edits that happened during the middle ages

so what you're saying is you can't believe the book you claim as holy because it has been changed so many times and once again read some history to prove it's been changed

 

[Amnestic]

Anyway, cheers.

I was mostly asking for your opinion on the teachings, less about what the teachings actually are. I know much of the messages already, I was wondering how people rationalise and concern themselves with them.

 

[npc255]

Glad I could help but really I just came because someone wanted another version of Christianity. Well if that's the case I'm on my way!

Though for the sake of defending Catholicism I will say this:
-I didn't say Mary was divine. Catholics do not believe this. I said Mary was sinless and Luther agreed.
-I meant people weren't inherently evil in the sense it's usually taken. That they all commit sins as much as possible. Their "taint" is original sin from Adam and Eve and it counts.
-I read Romans 9 and all I got was that Paul is being guided by the Holy Spirit so he knows he isn't lying. This is not the same as a forced conversion or even the Holy Spirit telling him what to say. The Holy Spirit seems to just be giving Paul the thumbs up.
-Free will is incredibly vital to the Christian faith. If you can't say "no" than what exactly would your "yes" mean? Without free will, love is a joke. God did not want slaves but children. Free will might not be mentioned but it has to exist or the whole thing philosophically falls apart and Christianity's claim to fame is that it's philosophically consistent.

Anyways, didn't mean to be a burden but just wanted to inject an extra voice. Adios!

 

[Mr. Moose]

I'm waiting for someone to bring up the Paradoxes

 

[sneakypenguin]

He doesn't create people specifically to go to hell, but He knows what you are going to do and where you're going to go.

But that's the problem. He knows where you're going to go, why not change people before birth so they don't go to hell? Why not make them 'better'? He may not create us with the intention of sending us to hell in a vengeful manner saying "HAH! There's another one for the flames!", but he creates us in full knowledge of where we're going to go. Why not stop himself beforehand and say "Hang on a sec, this is a bit douchey of me."?

Because that takes away the free will of someone(to make them so they would be saved guaranteed) . God could create man as perfect and he did with adam and eve, but he also gave man free will and man chose to sin and as such we are all born with a sin nature now.


Side note I don't agree with Max's Calvinistic predestination view(if people are predestined then why would I need to share the good news?) I believe that God is omnipotent and knows who will be saved but that all men have the option to accept God or reject Him. Christ died for all men not just an elect few.

 

[RebelRising]

I'm sorry, my dear sir, but "validity of faith" and "what Christians believe" is inherently intertwined. Besides, here is nothing here that says I can't inquire upon the actual motivations behind your religion. Please do me the courtesy to specify what the written beliefs of Christians and to differentiate those from your own personal opinions.

You can't say I haven't read your OP thoroughly now.

No it isn't. You can ask "what does the cross mean in Christianity?" or "where the crusades Christian?" without going the "that's stupid" route. I don't mind if you inquire, but don't bother trying to prove them wrong. They don't effect you, they effect us. For all this claims of Christians wanting to convert and restrict everybody, YOU came to this thread, and YOU are the one arguing against christianity as though I'm saying that this is YOUR truth, when I've made it clear I'm just saying what Christians (bible) think. Similarly, my opinions are from the Bible. I'd be doing an intellectual disservice to my faith otherwise. And for all this naysaying, noone is actually pointing to anything and saying "you've gone too far there". My strict theological convictions (the fundamentalist ones) so far seem present in my simple recount of what I believe with regards to the bible and why.

I can't prove it wrong, because it was never isn't right in the first place-nothing to disprove. That's a contradiction right there, for none of us are "right" enough to make everyone happy. We can only hope to find ground in an idea that satisfies our needs, however neurological they may be. That's the best any of us can get.

 

[Amnestic]

He doesn't create people specifically to go to hell, but He knows what you are going to do and where you're going to go.

But that's the problem. He knows where you're going to go, why not change people before birth so they don't go to hell? Why not make them 'better'? He may not create us with the intention of sending us to hell in a vengeful manner saying "HAH! There's another one for the flames!", but he creates us in full knowledge of where we're going to go. Why not stop himself beforehand and say "Hang on a sec, this is a bit douchey of me."?

Because that takes away the free will of someone(to make them so they would be saved guaranteed) . God could create man as perfect and he did with adam and eve, but he also gave man free will and man chose to sin and as such we are all born with a sin nature now.

I get that. I do. I understand that's the current method and changing it would impose upon our free will.

However equally, doing such a thing imposes on his status as omnibenevolent which is something equally important to Christianity last time I checked. It's a catch 22 from where I'm sitting which isn't something good for a religious deity.

 

[Labyrinth]

If you accept that the universe is infinite, and God, therefore is infinite, why would he give a damn about one tiny planet and its viral population of 6 billion ape-descendants?

 

[Amnestic]

If you accept that the universe is infinite, and God, therefore is infinite, why would he give a damn about one tiny planet and its viral population of 6 billion ape-descendants?

Because he loves us so huggy-muggy much.

 

[sneakypenguin]

He doesn't create people specifically to go to hell, but He knows what you are going to do and where you're going to go.

But that's the problem. He knows where you're going to go, why not change people before birth so they don't go to hell? Why not make them 'better'? He may not create us with the intention of sending us to hell in a vengeful manner saying "HAH! There's another one for the flames!", but he creates us in full knowledge of where we're going to go. Why not stop himself beforehand and say "Hang on a sec, this is a bit douchey of me."?

Because that takes away the free will of someone(to make them so they would be saved guaranteed) . God could create man as perfect and he did with adam and eve, but he also gave man free will and man chose to sin and as such we are all born with a sin nature now.

I get that. I do. I understand that's the current method and changing it would impose upon our free will.

However equally, doing such a thing imposes on his status as omnibenevolent which is something equally important to Christianity last time I checked. It's a catch 22 from where I'm sitting which isn't something good for a religious deity.

I believe that while God is a merciful and loving God I think people tend to believe that He is just this always loving no matter what which isn't true. I believe my God is a wrathful just and powerful God.(many instances of this especially in the old testament in His dealings with the jewish people. So to characterize God as omnibenevolent is a common misconception of people who wish i suppose for a guaranteed way out in the end(ie God won't send anyone to hell).

 

[Amnestic]

He doesn't create people specifically to go to hell, but He knows what you are going to do and where you're going to go.

But that's the problem. He knows where you're going to go, why not change people before birth so they don't go to hell? Why not make them 'better'? He may not create us with the intention of sending us to hell in a vengeful manner saying "HAH! There's another one for the flames!", but he creates us in full knowledge of where we're going to go. Why not stop himself beforehand and say "Hang on a sec, this is a bit douchey of me."?

Because that takes away the free will of someone(to make them so they would be saved guaranteed) . God could create man as perfect and he did with adam and eve, but he also gave man free will and man chose to sin and as such we are all born with a sin nature now.

I get that. I do. I understand that's the current method and changing it would impose upon our free will.

However equally, doing such a thing imposes on his status as omnibenevolent which is something equally important to Christianity last time I checked. It's a catch 22 from where I'm sitting which isn't something good for a religious deity.

I believe that while God is a merciful and loving God I think people tend to believe that He is just this always loving no matter what which isn't true. I believe my God is a wrathful just and powerful God.(many instances of this especially in the old testament in His dealings with the jewish people. So to characterize God as omnibenevolent is a common misconception of people who wish i suppose for a guaranteed way out in the end(ie God won't send anyone to hell).

Ah, but most Christians define God as omnibenevolent, in my experiences at least. A God which is not, one which is more in line with your vengeful viewpoint, I have significantly less issue with simply because it doesn't cause so many self-contradictions. Many Christians, I fear, would denounce your view though.

 

[sneakypenguin]

If you accept that the universe is infinite, and God, therefore is infinite, why would he give a damn about one tiny planet and its viral population of 6 billion ape-descendants?

Because He created us and as such cares for us. "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." - St. Matthew 10 v. 29

Basically saying this sparrow that is sold for nothing yet God cares for it, so why would He not then care for us, creatures created in his image

 

[Labyrinth]

If you accept that the universe is infinite, and God, therefore is infinite, why would he give a damn about one tiny planet and its viral population of 6 billion ape-descendants?

Because He created us and as such cares for us. "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." - St. Matthew 10 v. 29

Basically saying this sparrow that is sold for nothing yet God cares for it, so why would He not then care for us, creatures created in his image

I have yet to see any evidence supporting this. In my eyes, if God does exist, which I again have seen no evidence to suggest, it's just a omnipresent consciousness sitting back and laughing bitterly at our petty egoism.

 

[Amnestic]

If you accept that the universe is infinite, and God, therefore is infinite, why would he give a damn about one tiny planet and its viral population of 6 billion ape-descendants?

Because He created us and as such cares for us. "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." - St. Matthew 10 v. 29

Basically saying this sparrow that is sold for nothing yet God cares for it, so why would He not then care for us, creatures created in his image

I have yet to see any evidence supporting this. In my eyes, if God does exist, which I again have seen no evidence to suggest, it's just a omnipresent consciousness sitting back and laughing bitterly at our petty egoism.

I still maintain he created the universe out of boredom. Kinda like playing Spore.