Ask a Christian Theologian

[maximilian]

actually Saul or Paul, was a Syrian not a Jew

Whoops. Well I knew he wasn't a gentile and he listened to the religious leaders that wanted the Christians dead.

there is actually mention of a "great deciever" during the rule of James of the Essenes, he was spouting lies about his brother saying how he was divine and resurrected and brought back to life

This was the time everyone thought the Messiah would come so that doesn't surprise me. There were a lot of fakes, and the Bible even mentions the Jewish authorities talking about one whose followers lost their fervor after awhile.

Please don't feed the Essene troll. And Cleverlymadeup please don't say "look at your history". You're introducing the weird, tangential superimposition of Christianity - it's up to you to prove it and "reveal" your sources. Also, Saul/Paul WAS a Jew. He was a Pharisee according to the Bible and historical account.

I imagine non-Christians would be very interested to see how the different Christian theologies view each other.

Seconded.

Oh! Oh! I want to help! I'm a Catholic, I can help!

Transubstantion, asking Mary and the saints for intercession (different from praying to them like dieties), reconciliation through a priest, the pope's authority and being against contraception and homosexuality are all fun things that Catholic church does and most Christians disagree with. The question is why? Well, contrary to popular belief, they didn't come up with these rules after the Reformation. Early church fathers wrote about all of these things (the same church fathers that were around when and soon after Jesus died) and the Catholic church simply hasn't decided to change their mind on it (logical if they think they have the truth).


Side notes:

As for the cross, the reason is most likely (I'm 99.9% sure) because dying was the most important thing Jesus did. The teachings were to guide us and the miracles (including rising from the dead) were to prove He was actually a prophet of God (or better) but the one thing that's most important is His sacrafice.

The Latin Bible thing is a result of the fact that anyone back then who could read, could read Latin. It wasn't some conspiracy to confuse the illiterate population. Interesting side note, not only was Martin Luther not the first person to translate the Bible from Latin, he wasn't even the first one to translate it into German.

Faith strikes most people as exclusively Christian because they care about it the most. Buddhists can reach enlightenment and Jews can follow the law. Muslims can do Allah's will. They have faith that they will save themselves this way. Christians differ. St. Paul wrote that saving yourself through good works was completely impossible (he didn't say don't do them though). They only way you can be saved is by accepting that Jesus has died for you.

Finally, a Catholic to answer some questions. Welcome friend, I appreciate your clearing those up, but do explain that last paragraph.

I thought the whole "salvation through faith alone" was the basis for Luther's entire movement. At least that's what I've heard. And my history teacher is a Calvinist himself, so there you go!

Reformed = Calvinist. I am a Calvinist. You are right. The Catholic church built it's own traditions into doctrine that they believe is equally important to scripture. Look at indulgences and history to see why protestantism protested. Similarly, I like the way your tone of language paints you as some open minded, ideologically fair progressive. Perhaps you could have employed that with me before you bombarded me...

 

[maximilian]

Why did you become a Christian and not a Jew then? You've mentioned Revelations I think--why do you think John of Patmos could get a 'Biblical' text transmitted by way of him after Christ's death, but not Joseph Smith with the Book of Mormon?

Because I wasn't born Jewish - because I believe Christianity...
The same way Paul/Saul could. And if you look at the late Biblical texts, they are so enormously self reflexive and complex in line with the earlier texts that a comparison to Joseph Smith doesn't stand.

I don't remember ever bringing up the term "intolerance."

Someone else did. The RE teacher.

Who practiced these things and where is it in the Bible?

They are practiced on authority of the successors of St. Peter, who is granted this authority in the Bible: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The rock is based upon Peter - it doesn't mean you get to keep writing the Bible.
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

Actually, I don't think he will--that's specifically why I was asking.

The apocrypha are the books I'm not for - same with the Catholic traditions cum doctrines. The compilation of the Bible by the catholic (catholic meaning "universal" - it's actual meaning) church I have no problem with. It's the advent of Roman Catholicism that I do.

Yeah, but what source do we have for all those things but the people who had a reason to identify Jesus with those prophecies/why wouldn't people spit on and beat someone they were going to execute? That's why I was only talking about the Crucifixion--the OP said it wasn't invented at the time of the prophecies and it's the only thing I know of that could be verified by an outside source.

Well, if you read Isaiah and then about the crucifixion, you'll see the similarities. Gambling clothes, pierced in the side, hung upon a tree, body crushed (read what happens during Roman execution) etc etc etc.

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)

Roman Catholicism and "catholic" are completely different. One is built upon a long list of deviations and added doctrine and the other means "universal". We would indeed be the "Catholic" church had Roman Catholicism not taken a severe deviation from the true picture in Biblical texts. Which is why we're reformed.

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

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[/quote]
OKAY. Pointless banter aside. What do you actually believe? This is going to be far more helpful than me saying what I think, you telling me I'm wrong and pointing at some bizarre pseudo belief forged on a very fringe Essene understanding. I want to know the whole kit and caboodle so I don't keep answering, and you - being all powerful with such an amazing knowledge (even though I seem to remember you thinking that Old Testament law had to be enacted by Christians) - keep feeding me with bizarre "facts" based on you saying "that's what it says and not actually SHOWING me.

Actually, you didn't: you came here to be a helpful guide to a particular type of Christianity. You should be clear about that, or why to you Catholics aren't Christians of another denomination, and are only heretics.

Thing is, they're fascinated with *all denominations of* Christianity, and are often ignorant of the actual teachings of those denominations, not just the ones who find all authority in a particular form of the Bible.

I really don't think people came here to hear stuff like "contraception isn't unbiblical, it's Catholic heresy designed to create prolific Catholic congregations" or that Transubstination is a belief of some people others call Christians because "Catholics have perverted scripture," do you?

Did you see the "reformed" tag in the first post?
Roman Catholicism doesn't believe that Jesus is the SOLE way to Christianity in the way that the Bible expounds. Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism are two massive different camps. Similarly, Roman Catholicism isn't a different denomination - it's a different religion with different doctrines. Denominations is a disagreeing on small interpretation on bits of scripture (such as Clint Eastwood pointed to: infant baptism etc.) but they are the SAME doctrines. Similarly, I'm fairly sure you don't even know the difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant reformed Christianity - because whenever I jump in to correct Catholic thinking in your posts, it oftens ends up being "we agree with that too!" - which just isn't the case. Ie. Catholics believe that Mary was divine/perfect. She wasn't and nowhere in the Bible does it say she is. Yet, Catholics pray to her with the idea that she conveys those prayers to God - which again the Bible doesn't say. Also, we don't need to confess to a priest, do indulgences, take Holy Communion, not use contraception or have priests who can't get married.
And heresy isn't a bad word, it's the word used to describe "Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine." Which is what Roman Catholicism does.

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.

Amnestic, I really want to talk to you but this has become very crowded. Would you be willing to PM me?

 

[maximilian]

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.

I'm happy for you to disagree on that. As long as you believe the fundamentals of the Bible, I'm happy for Arminians. I will say that you might like to check out the "Tulip seminars" by John Piper. It might better explain why I'm calvinist.

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 says He does.

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.

To say that God is benevolent is to undermine the cross and what he's done. He Has to punish in order to be Just and in order to be Love. (I've written the logical progression of this in answer to someone else, somewhere... !)

Yep most christians would believe like you said, which is an unfortunate thing but goes along with the Bible's characterization of people.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. (timothy 4:3)(i believe)

Basically saying hey they wont want the truth but something that makes them feel good, and a doctrine teaching that God is a always loving everythings gonna be fine kinda deal appeals to them and unfortunately that belief is incorrect.

I would say 50% of the people sitting in a church pew are not truly saved. Which is heart breaking(to me anyways)

I fully agree on all counts. Put in a much more gracious way by you though Sneaky. I tend to be rather obtuse in the face of such an overwhelming response.

Why does the bible say the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth when it is clearly not so? Did god make a mistake?

It doesn't. He didn't.

Ok this is bullshit. Galileo was excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun since it went against god's teachings.

Doesn't mean it's anywhere in the bible. And if you want to use "the earth cannot be moved" I'd challenge you to look at the context it was written (in brief - God is powerful, we are not - we cannot move the earth in a "we cannot move the mountain" sense).

Okay... This isn't probably a good question... but do christians (talking about Bible here) actually believe in existence of planets other then Earth, and if they do, what's the deal with it? I mean it would make sense if they didn't believe in existence of planets other then earth because supposedly heaven is in the sky and hell is below, but... yeah.
I guess this is kind of another attempt to undermine christian faith. Meh.

Basically, God creates the universe (including said planets). He creates a place called 'the heavens' and the earth. Hell only comes into existence after the fall, and it's biblically defined as anywhere that God's LOVE isn't. His wrath is still there though.

A few questions for the original post.

Can God sin?

God by definition cannot sin because sin is anything that is opposed to God. The bible tells us (in another context) that anything opposed to itself cannot stand - ie. that if God could sin it is pointless to worship Him because it undermines his power.

Did Jesus sin?

The Bible tells us that Jesus did not sin, but was tempted to do so. For Him to be God's son, he could not sin.

Were we all created in the image of God or were only Adam and Eve?

Essentially, created in the image of God is taken to mean physical shape and existence profile - which could be seen as the defining underlying properties as to why we're the most progressive/"human" thing on planet earth.

Do you know some people who you think are going to hell?

In align with my predestinarian theology, I cannot SAY for certain whether non Christians will be going to hell long term and from retrospect, because they might become a Christian. However, I can say that if you are NOT a Christian, then the result of that is hell.

I'll have some more questions later.

No worries, thanks for some good questions in the spirit of the OP.

Here's one for you: why is it that Christians say grace before dinner? I'm going to assume that as a good Christian that tries to not be a sinner, you worked hard to pay for all that lovely food, I don't see why you should go and thank somebody else for that. You deserve the credit!

Good question. The basic idea is that God tells us that all provision is from Him (in Matthew 6: 25-34). Essentially, grace marks a point that feeds us and keeps us going, much like God tells us He sustains us spiritually and by blessing us with that food. So to take credit for it is to essentially take someone else's glory.

Here's a question for you (hopefully it's not too personal): what's the main reason that's stopping you from believing and following Jesus?

The question wasn't directed at me but here's my answer; I do follow Jesus. I just don't believe that Jesus is or was what you think he is.

A better question relates to God. I don't wish to worship a God that:

Requires people to worship him.
Thinks that doing so is more important than doing good works.
Tests faith constantly by providing mountains of evidence for evolution.
Doesn't want people to think for themselves.
Makes creaures that have to perform certain acts for survival, then declares those acts a sin.
Deems babies to be born full of sin, and thus worthy of execution.

That's your anti-biblical/christian proclivity. I can't reconcile it to you.
However, evolution can be theistic (and often is to a large degree).
I think for myself. I was not born Christian and cossetted into my christianity. I made a decision and I adhere to it.

And I don't want to follow religious leaders that:

Allow evil men to operate as part of the church, and refuse to condemn or expel them.
Are avaricious and greedy.
Look down on some of their fellow human beings because of an accident of genetics, or birthplace.
Concentrate on the least important aspects of their holy books.
Use holy books to justify injustice.

Neither do I.

Here's one for you: why is it that Christians say grace before dinner? I'm going to assume that as a good Christian that tries to not be a sinner, you worked hard to pay for all that lovely food, I don't see why you should go and thank somebody else for that. You deserve the credit!

Yes, I've wondered this, myself....

maximilian, what do you have to say on the matter?

Answered above.

What should not be in dispute was that Galileo was put on trial for pursuing scientific enquiry and banned from presenting evidence that might disprove currently held beliefs. However since the OP is anti-catholic and it was the Pope who pronounced against Galileo I feel this is going to be a fruitless argument, as at the just the moment you have won he is going to claim Catholic conspiracy, a very convenient get-out as for the majority of christian history the Catholic church and Christianity were synonymous.

Yeah, it's convenient. This is because what I'm going from is the Bible and then looking at human behavior to see if it is a true reflection of the bible. This wasn't. It was a method of retaining church power for unbiblical reasons (ie. greed - just take a look at Roman catholic clergy systems of medieval times.) If everyone went around saying that 1+1 equals 3, and then I say that it actually equals 2 - we're both using numbers but one is clearly correct mathematics.

 

[Jack Spencer Jr]

They are practiced on authority of the successors of St. Peter, who is granted this authority in the Bible: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

A common misconception since this passage is often taken out of context. With context:



When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.


Part of the confusion stems from the name Peter, a nickname Jesus gave to Simon. The name he gave him was Petros, which means rock or stone. Jesus was being a little clever here because what he said was "And I tell you that you are Petros, and on this Petra I will build my church" Petra meaning the deep bedrock. So the rock upon which he will build his church is not Peter but what Peter had just said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

It's a common misconception as some of the meaning had been lost in translation.

 

[WildW]

Hi - thanks for an interesting thread folks. I shall try and keep my questions as non-confrontational as possible.

To go back to the point of the original post, I have a couple of subjects I'd like to understand a little better from the Christian perspective. So, to start with the biggie. . .

The Resurrection. My simplistic understanding of the Resurrection is that Jesus died in an unpleasant way in order to create a "new covenant" so that man's sins can be forgiven, and that this was almost like one final "sacrifice". I've always been a little confused as to why it was really necessary. . . I guess the death and resurrection is almost like a big show to make everyone take notice? I guess what I've never really understood though is what was so special about it. Jesus was executed by crucifiction, but it's not like they invented it just for him, it was a standard way of disposing of people. And God didn't really "sacrifice" him, as 3 days later he gets him back again. I suppose what I'm saying is, I don't quite see the big picture. He comes back to life to prove he's God? And the new covenant required spilling of blood?

My other question is. . . Hell. . . what's it for? My understanding of punishment is that it is reforming. You tell off a naughty child to change their behaviour. You imprison a criminal to try and get them not to do it again. In some countries when people are so bad we don't know what to do with them, they are executed to dispose of them. Hell seems more like the latter - a dumping place for people beyond any measure of help. There's the concept of pergatory that I don't know so much about, which I guess is for reforming those who can be saved?

But Hell itself, eternal torment? Why bother? If you want rid of those people, snap them out of existance. If you want to reform them, why is it eternal? Since we on Earth cannot see Hell, it cannot serve as an example to us - or at least no more than God pretending there's a hell and telling us that to make us behave. Is there some aspect to hell beyond the eternal torment that I don't get. . . because it looks like God just enjoys tormenting folks for eternity for the sake of it. It doesn't appear to achieve anything.

 

[maximilian]

Maximilian: so much of the Bible is open to interpretation that you cannot possibly claim to be a 'Christian' in the way you do without nailing your colours to the mast and asserting which version of the Bible you follow.

I follow the Bible which has been translated from the original texts and I follow it to the letter. When I state I am "Christian", it's synonymous with a held world view - and understanding of "truth".

Interpretation is such a massive part of Christianity that it is foolish to assert that you follow the grass roots, unadulterated version, and look down on those who have altered it.

We live in a postmodern age, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd say this. The thing is, to have a concrete faith, you have to know what you believe - it isn't foolishness to hold a belief based on empirical evidence (within Biblical validity). Ie. the best understand War and Peace, I'd get Tolstoy's original manuscripts in the Russian. I wouldn't read the new popular version in english with the invented ending. Therefore, I'm not "Foolish" in asserting that the original version is closest to what the author intended. If I say I know what I believe and what the bible teaches (without adding to it or subtracting from it) then I actually have a point to present from and am actually being humble because I am submitting myself to a point of view and putting myself beneath it. I don't look down upon the individuals who follow what I believe to be an incorrect understanding of the bible, I disagree with that understanding of the bible. Different things.

Especially when you follow such a random, modern version.

It isn't random or modern. It's the most stable understanding of the bible and was returned to after reformation in the 16th century. It's very, very old.

To many people I would be considered Christian.

Do you believe Jesus was the son of God who died for the sins of the world that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life? If not, you're not. That's what the bible says.

I grew up in a Christian country, observe Christmas and Easter, and revere Jesus above all other religious figures. I see the New Testament as an inspiring work, and indeed most of the Old.

So you're agnostic. Don't think these things are in any way synonymous with being a Christian. E.g. you can dress like a girl, wear girl perfume, have girl friends and talk effeminately but you're still, fundamentally, not a girl.

I am, however, unconvinced by the existence of God, and dispute whether it is important.

If God doesn't exist then Christianity is pointless. No God = no heaven, no hell, no Jesus etc.

I am unconvinced even whether Jesus himself believed in him.

I believe that someone who claimed to be the son of God must have believed in His father/God.

I don't believe the Bible comes as the literal word of God even if God did the things that are ascribed to him. I can see that a newspaper published the day things happened, recording events that are also recorded on reviewable technology, get things wrong, so find it very hard indeed to see that a hundredth-hand document thousands of years old should be perfection itself.

This is an issue of textual validity - but no matter how many things I show you, you can always claim an inherent bias due to the fact that it is a make or break world view.

Most of all I find it impossible to countenance that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God gives a fig what I think in the confines of my head. If he's really bothered about being praised, then he isn't worth praising.

That's you moralistic agnostic reasoning. It isn't up to me to redesign things around you - the hard line is that you're NOT a Christian. The bible contradicts you, that's what our faith is based on. I have to go with the Bible.

All of these things are perfectly compatible given my personal interpretation of the Bible and yet are, I'm sure, light years from your own beliefs. Am I the one who is adding and interpreting, given what we know of human weaknesses and nature, or is it you?

Yeah, you're adding and subtracting. The bible says we have to do things one way - you're directly contradicting that and using it as a moralistic/inspiring piece of mythology as far as I can ascertain. I don't buy a model kit and presume I'm going to end up with what's on the box if I don't follow all the instructions. Similarly, sin has a large part to do with biblical interpretation. For example, you're quite happy reconciled with the fact that you don't have to believe any of the "truths" of Christianity. I HAVE to believe the truths because the bible is God's word and therefore I have to submit to it. I have to do a tonne of work, ever knowing that I'm never going to be reaching the point where I don't have to work (on earth that is). Essentially, looking at the Bible, God conflicts with us because He is perfect - the Bible says that. Therefore, to wrestle with the Bible while upholding it as truth is authentic to scripture, while cherry picking what to believe and what not to believe isn't submission at all or humility, because you're cherry picking based on what you want and not what God wants. So, base line, my point is that if you're happy to pick and mix, what says you're pick and mixing accurately other than you're own (and often flawed) reasoning? And if your reasoning isn't flawed, and the bible says that it is, why are you picking from the bible at all?

Religiously tolerant means recognising that we all fit the scheme of life in different ways.

Yeah. I recognise that some people are going to Heaven and some are going to Hell. It doesn't mean I hate or can't LOVE those people.

That there are many paths to God, whatever that is.

This isn't tolerance, this is agnosticism. Agnosticism is your world view. Therefore, you are being "intolerant" of me because my world view ISN'T yours. Anyway, there are many speculative paths towards a spiritual conclusion, but the rule of non contradiction applies. I can still uphold what I believe to be true without being a jerk (although I often don't do a good job in this thread).

I have studies in some depth six major world religions, and know passing amounts of a few more. Nowhere but in Christianity do I find at its core the absolute confidence that it is the only way, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

The bible contradicts that though - so I don't know what Christianity you've been studying... John 3: 16 onwards is a pretty popular verse.. Surely you can see that to claim that there is a God is to have "confidence"? Surely the sheer magnitude (this is a progression from the sheer amount of biblical passages that say "this is the only way") of the issues, themes and outcomes present in Christian tenets are of enough gravity to elevate it beyond a discussion of why you didn't or didn't like Spiderman 3? These are weighty issues, and to claim that Christianity is in anyway pluralist is, in your words "foolish". I'd be keen to see what you base this assertion on.

Now I'm going to sleep. If I don't wake up again, then there is a God. I'll let you know.

So melodramatic. What is the logic behind Him killing you in your sleep if He doesn't even exist? Why would He WANT to kill you in your sleep? By that logic, EVERY single non believer should be killed in their sleep...

 

[exocel]

Regardless of how wise a being may be, if your the only one of your kind in existence, how can you create species or angels, how do you understand the idea of "more than one" if god himself, the christian god, has never encountered another of itself ever?

 

[Evilbunny]

Here is my question. What is up with Easter? Unless I am mistaken, Easter is the day Jesus rose from the dead, so why do people paint eggs then hide them? And what about the Easter bunny? Where did that asshole come from? I feel like the guy who was in charge of deciding how that holiday should be celebrated was on acid.

 

[corporate_gamer]

To the OP:

As you were raised as a non-Christian what are your views on relationships with non-Christians. Do you think they can work or do you have to share your life with someone who has the exact same belief system as you? Also what effect would you think this have on your children, if you had some?

 

[Lukeje]

Here is my question. What is up with Easter? Unless I am mistaken, Easter is the day Jesus rose from the dead, so why do people paint eggs then hide them? And what about the Easter bunny? Where did that asshole come from? I feel like the guy who was in charge of deciding how that holiday should be celebrated was on acid.

The Pagan Festival Easter is based on... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara] and the reason for the eggs... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg]

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

Can one of the Christian Theologians/intellectuals explain a few things for me (my knowledge in this area lacking a little).

Firstly: What is the difference between Protestants and Catholics. (On a side note what are the other main groups in the Christian Religion over view)

Secondly: Do you take the Bible as total truth or what?

Thirdly: Even though you are Christians do you believe in evolution or are you automatically considered wrong by the rest of christianity if you do believe in evolution?

If you can answer those then thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Solo508]

Hello my fellow believer.

Do you, like I, believe that The Crusades were in truth a beautiful effort and a great face for Christianity despite what other non-believers think?

I'll reply to other Christians questions in PM to keep this fairly organised.

No. I want you to answer this here infront of everybody please.

 

[Evilbunny]

Here is my question. What is up with Easter? Unless I am mistaken, Easter is the day Jesus rose from the dead, so why do people paint eggs then hide them? And what about the Easter bunny? Where did that asshole come from? I feel like the guy who was in charge of deciding how that holiday should be celebrated was on acid.

The Pagan Festival Easter is based on... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara] and the reason for the eggs... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg]

Thank you, that didn't explain the Easter bunny, though.

 

[Lukeje]

Here is my question. What is up with Easter? Unless I am mistaken, Easter is the day Jesus rose from the dead, so why do people paint eggs then hide them? And what about the Easter bunny? Where did that asshole come from? I feel like the guy who was in charge of deciding how that holiday should be celebrated was on acid.

The Pagan Festival Easter is based on... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara] and the reason for the eggs... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg]

Thank you, that didn't explain the Easter bunny, though.

Because you couldn't be bothered clicking on the 'Easter Bunny' link in the article, Here it is. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bunny]

 

[PlasticPorter]

Hello my fellow believer.

Do you, like I, believe that The Crusades were in truth a beautiful effort and a great face for Christianity despite what other non-believers think?

wow how immature and hateful of you, your sarcasm is horrible and so are you
why don't you ask every arab person why there a flagrant suicide bomber while your at it?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

actually Saul or Paul, was a Syrian not a Jew

Whoops. Well I knew he wasn't a gentile and he listened to the religious leaders that wanted the Christians dead.

there is actually mention of a "great deciever" during the rule of James of the Essenes, he was spouting lies about his brother saying how he was divine and resurrected and brought back to life

This was the time everyone thought the Messiah would come so that doesn't surprise me. There were a lot of fakes, and the Bible even mentions the Jewish authorities talking about one whose followers lost their fervor after awhile.

Please don't feed the Essene troll. And Cleverlymadeup please don't say "look at your history". You're introducing the weird, tangential superimposition of Christianity - it's up to you to prove it and "reveal" your sources. Also, Saul/Paul WAS a Jew. He was a Pharisee according to the Bible and historical account.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/ - hey they call the Nazarene a part of the Essenes
http://www.essene.com/ - another one
http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm
http://minuteswithmessiah.tripod.com/question/nazarene.html


i could find more google has tons of links

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

OKAY. Pointless banter aside. What do you actually believe? This is going to be far more helpful than me saying what I think, you telling me I'm wrong and pointing at some bizarre pseudo belief forged on a very fringe Essene understanding. I want to know the whole kit and caboodle so I don't keep answering, and you - being all powerful with such an amazing knowledge (even though I seem to remember you thinking that Old Testament law had to be enacted by Christians) - keep feeding me with bizarre "facts" based on you saying "that's what it says and not actually SHOWING me.

actually what i believe is irrelevant here and has nothing to do with the subject at hand, also i never said that about the old testament i simply asked why you said it was the law of god and yet you don't think it's correct or truthful. as for my knowledge, why not try search google and some history books and even your own bible

i'm simply asking you why you say editing the bible corrupts it and yet the version was have has been severely edited and changed over the years, including when it was decided by man

so again how can you say that adapting the bible is wrong and something that is not christianity and yet the bible has been edited MANY MANY times over the year, not withstanding the translations

look up someone by the name of q he was one of the many authors of the bible

 

[Vigormortis]

Okay, so I get the whole anti-contraception thing, and the anti-gay thing, as they're written in the bible and it's the unchangeable word of god etc etc.

My question is thus. When my father goes to sell me as sanctioned by Exodus, what's a fair price to ask in this day and age?

Probably around $1.32. No one wants to buy a troll.

At a buck 32, I'd buy. Cheapest pet I'll ever buy. Just imagine the fun at parties when you pull the troll out of the closet to scare your guests.

Admittedly though, I fail to see how you consider her comments "trolling". Perhaps you could make stretch and claim it's baiting, but the fact is she brings up a rather valid point (through a witty joke no less).

Also, calling someone a "troll" after they've posted only one comment on the topic is a bit...well, troll-ish. :/

 

[Evilbunny]

Here is my question. What is up with Easter? Unless I am mistaken, Easter is the day Jesus rose from the dead, so why do people paint eggs then hide them? And what about the Easter bunny? Where did that asshole come from? I feel like the guy who was in charge of deciding how that holiday should be celebrated was on acid.

The Pagan Festival Easter is based on... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara] and the reason for the eggs... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg]

Thank you, that didn't explain the Easter bunny, though.

Because you couldn't be bothered clicking on the 'Easter Bunny' link in the article, Here it is. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Bunny]

Oh thank you, I dunno how missed that.

 

[CrazyBerk]

What is your favourite colour?
Were your parents Christian?
Would you KILL for your religion?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Okay, so I get the whole anti-contraception thing, and the anti-gay thing, as they're written in the bible and it's the unchangeable word of god etc etc.

My question is thus. When my father goes to sell me as sanctioned by Exodus, what's a fair price to ask in this day and age?

Probably around $1.32. No one wants to buy a troll.

At a buck 32, I'd buy. Cheapest pet I'll ever buy. Just imagine the fun at parties when you pull the troll out of the closet to scare your guests.

Admittedly though, I fail to see how you consider her comments "trolling". Perhaps you could make stretch and claim it's baiting, but the fact is she brings up a rather valid point (through a witty joke no less).

Also, calling someone a "troll" after they've posted only one comment on the topic is a bit...well, troll-ish. :/

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." --Wikipedia

I would say that mocking someone's holy book would be cataloged under the "inflammatory messages" column, and is trying to get under the OP's skin. Therefore, a troll.

Back on topic, which sect of Christianity has the burning cross as their symbol, and why is it their symbol?