Ask a Christian Theologian

[XzarTheMad]

Thanks for the response. I can't say I agree with you, but it does provide insight, which is always nice. :3 Iffin ye mind I'll continue my questions, but try to keep them shorter.

You say you come from a "moralistic environment". What exactly do you mean? "Morals" aren't necessarily inherent to religion, are they? I, for instance, was raised in a home without religion of any kind, despite having a small Jesus cross hang in the livingroom (it's still there, even). I often see or hear people talking about "the Christian Values" or ethics, such as "don't kill", "don't steal", etc. etc. However, I fully and honestly believe these were invented far before organized religion, and specifically, before Christianity was invented. It's fairly clear that for a society to survive we need peace, and I think it's wise of the origins of various religions to include these in the "do's and don'ts" of their beliefs, but I honestly cringe whenever people refer to them as "biblical" or "christian" values. It gives the impression that these people believe that non-religious people cannot possibly adhere to morals or ethics, and that it requires a divine source to recieve what I'd call "common knowledge". And I do go as far as to say that these things are hard-coded into the human brain, being social animals that we are. What's your view on that? I don't expect you to agree on the last part, but do you view ethics as something bound to religion?

On the last point you replied to me, I do agree that I hold a very atheistic way of viewing the world, but isn't it possible, even while one is religious, to see the advantages of keeping religion as a strictly, or prefferably, personal level? What does the "group" of religion add that you can't have by yourself? For instance, why do you call yourself "christian" instead of just "a believer in Sheneequa, my personal god"? Does the brand Christian actually help you maintain faith, is it simply for simplicity's sake, or is there an underlying, special thing that I as a cannot-believ'er (which I say because I don't just want not to believe, I simply can't believe in anything supernatural) cannot understand?

Thanks!

 

[maximilian]

I'm a Native American, and I'd like to know what you think of the colonization of the United States and the role that Catholics/Christians played in it? Let's not forget the colonization of the Carribean, Central, and Southern America.

From my point of view, people of the Christian/Catholic faiths are just as bad, if not worse than the Nazi's, and I'm really curious if you see it that way at all.

I think that the methods used by "Christian" invaders were unbiblical and unchristian. The violence is unbiblical, the want to conquer is unbiblical, etc. I don't condone it at all.

Why are christians so unlike their christ?

Sin. The very reason He came to die for us.

Oh? The Bible says EVERYONE was corrupt, so God's allowed to murder them all?

Yeah. Stop Him.

What about the babies? I don't think they were throwing virgins into volcanoes in their spare time.

Sin is inherent. Like genetics.

And Cheeze has a damn fine point. Catholicism, corrupt as it is, has just as much evidence towards being correct as any other form of Christianity. Hell, Pastafarianism has as much chance of being true as does Christianity.
And if I hear a "God moves in mysterious ways", I'm going all Torquemada on your ass.

No it doesn't.
You should believe in pastafarianism.
"God does indeed move in mysterious ways".

 

[cleverlymadeup]

1: Questions of translation are unhelpful, and can't really prove anything either way. As neither of us, I'm guessing, have read the original text I'll leave this one.

i'll hold off the real answer to this, i know it but i want to see what our esteemed "theologian" thinks

2: Because someone who heard a different story wrote it?

3: The Gospels aren't written by the apostles, they are non-contemporary accounts written down many years later. From memory the earliest is judged to have been written approximately 60 yeras after the time of Jesus. Very few people could write back then, and it is unlikely that any of the apostles could.

actually that's wrong, there are 8 other gospels, we've found them AND they are mentioned in history as well

4: Most of the religions on earth have parallels. The fact that similar religions around at the same time arrived at the same idea does not invalidate them, or mean that one cannot be 'the one true faith'.

5: Yes. Don't know exactly what point you are trying to make here, but yes. but see also point 4.

6: Because John The Baptist isn't Jesus? I suspect Jesus is revered more because he ended up having more political impact. Again, however, doesn't preclude him being the Son Of God as well.

really don't answer what you don't know, the Essenes are a sect of Judaism that were around during the time of christ

these 3 points belong together, funnily enough Islam recognizes both as equals

7: Because we have no idea what the real dates were, and the christian missionaries appropriated the pagan festivals.

yes but those 2 dates are specific and yet again i'll hold off till our esteemed theologian tries to answer but i doubt he will

8: Because he had lived for forty years? I don't quite know where you got that age from, but I fail to see it's relevance. From a historical point of view its widely accepted that there was a person called Jesus, and we have no idea what he did before he became famous. Quite possibly he was famous for less worthy reasons previously. Or he was being a normal human being. Some people see Jesus as God incarnate, a God previously given to authoritarian commandments, in which case maybe he was just spending his time seeing what it was like to be a human being, and why he has generally kept out of it since.

9&10 I can't even begin to understand what you are getting at in though, I throw those open to the floor.

these also belong together and you're rather far off the mark on everything


ok now to our esteemed theologian

11. how come christians say the pentagram is the sign of the devil and yet the number 40 and it's multiples are so prevelant throughout it's mythos?

 

[maximilian]

You really must have a fracking huge ego to be able to say what God thinks about matters.

I read the Bible, it says it's God. God is arrogant. Otherwise, "it's all good in the hood guys!"

So you got a decree and now you think you can do that? Youre not explaining The Christianity as you are claiming, youre only explaining your views about it.

Yes and my opinion is based on 10 years of study, including 3 at one of the best academic institutions in the world. What do you want me to do? My opinion is the Bible - through God's mercy. Take it or leave it. Or perhaps try watered down, liberal Christianity lite.

Oh, and how do you justify Christianity's obliteration of African religion?
Ooh, and how about that Spanish Inquisition? Good times!
Hey, you guys sanctioned slavery, right? What a hoot!

They weren't Christian. Read - "don't murder".
They weren't Christian. Read - "don't murder".
William Wilberforce. Thank goodness slavery was abolished by an atheist. Haw haw. You realise it was sanctioned and encouraged by nonbelievers too right?

 

[Amnestic]

Despite Sorrow's rather vulgar way of addressing the question it is a good one. How can you justify the sorrow (heh) that people go through daily when a supposedly omnibenevolent God created us? Basically I'm asking how you deal with the problem of evil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil]

This is an audio file that explains it really well. http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Suffering_If_God_is_good_why.mp3 It's a sermon/talk, so you can glean a pretty solid understanding from it.

First of all, not a fan of how much he's waffling. Be much nicer he just got to his points in quick succession rather than waffle about his hymns and Daniel when they don't directly connect to his point about the Problem of Evil.

The preacher's first point of how those who don't believe in God have a bigger problem with violence is invalidated by cultural relativism and self-preservation instincts. It's easier to keep yourself alive if you're not going to war with each other every day after all, therefore our natural instincts, despite what the preacher in this clip suggests, do not in fact pose a bigger problem in regards to the Problem of Evil and violence than those who do.

His second point, which he *finally* reached after going on and on and on and on and on and on about the bloody fiery furnace is that because Jesus died on the Cross that he loves us and therefore he could someday end all evil. However this doesn't work with the idea of an omnipotent God. Why bother taking a long winded route like this when you could just go BAM! and end all suffering right now? Why continue this? His answer has only shut off the "God is not omnibenevolent" route, leaving the "God is not omnipotent" path still open to take.

His third point is that eventually Heaven will turn up. Again, that's not an explanation for why God doesn't end suffering *now*. That's saying he'll end it eventually. Again, it doesn't account for the "God is not omnipotent" route. His reasons that eventually all our suffering will get turned into something far more wonderful because we suffered again, doesn't account for not ending suffering now. Why does he hold off on it? So more people can suffer?

His final point is that Jesus sacrificed him for us, again and that we're "his Living Hope". At least that's how I heard it. Honestly it was pretty freaking convoluted. As such, I've addressed the point above, that wasn't necessary.

I'm sorry, his points just don't seem to justify the Omnipotent God to me.

 

[RebelRising]

So basically this thread is really "an attempt at an intelligent conversation between a Christian bigoted against Catholics and a non-Christian to clear up different issues."

Great...way to promote 'tolerance'...

Is it possible when differentiating your beliefs from those of Catholics to use neutral terms, unlike "ignorant" and "perverted scripture" and, really now: "HERESY"?

I'm not promoting tolerance. It won't exist between two disagreeing world views.
Similarly, I believe that the Bible is the truth, therefore it won't matter to me at all whatever lie or distortion is put on it (read - Catholic teaching) it's still a perversion, ignorant and heresy. All the definitions align with the uses. Feel free to start a Catholic thread.

Also, Maximillian, it would appear that by stating Evangelical Christianity as a "worldview," you are making it sound like your beliefs are grounded in you and other people's feelings on heavenly issues. There are an innumerable myriad of differing beliefs and ideologies that are incompatible.

This incompatibility mirrors human nature itself, and neither you nor Catholicism can be right because, logistically, "sin" as you traditionally know, is no more than a mere mortal's interpretation of psychologically/emotionally inspired behaviors, which in turn, are borne of Nature taking its course and us taking advantage of whatever physical and intellectual capabilities are acquired.

This is why there are laws instead of a Heaven-based bureaucracy. Some people's desires and wishes for advancement are hindered by things such as rape, irrationally motivated genocide, which I think all of us can agree are bad things. What is hindered is happiness, peace, possession; as long as happiness, peace, and possession aren't intruding upon others' need for those same things, they will agree that we can coexist as such. Those who hinder it, are seen as ruining the core existential means of life. They are punished by methods that don't, or at least shouldn't intrude upon others' happiness, peace, and possession. Thus, nature resumes its course for all species' positive objectives.

God does not fit into the equation for this sort of social stability and general happiness, thus he is irrelevant to human "dealing and emotions." Your "worldview" cost a lot of people their happiness, peace, and possession from the 1500's to the early 1900's. This not to say that the Catholic mindset (not "Godset" mind you) is exempt from having caused much death and destruction based from its mortal-born dogma (including the Bible, written by Jews about how the Jews were superior. Talk about Journalistic integrity), but this goes to show that such incompatibility causes only strife and misery for those don't find themselves compatible with word-by-word.

Thank you, that is all, for now

 

[XzarTheMad]

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

Seconded.

 

[Tranka Verrane]

Wow. Those answers are truly shocking from someone who seemed to be fairly coherent at first. I barely even know where to begin.

Personally I believe the existence or non-existence of God is open to interpretation on so many levels it is very difficult to argue against it. However the literal truth of the bible is something very few Christians here in the UK believe, and I think they are in the minority worldwide as well. I don't, therefore, think that you can claim to be speaking on behalf of Christians as a whole, as your attitudes seem to tend towards the more extreme end. I don't even know many Muslims who go as far as you in some respects.

I'm not even going to attempt to argue with you on this, the level of suspension of disbelief required to interpret the bible literally makes my head hurt even just thinking about it. It does tell me pretty firmly, however, that you aren't open to rational debate, so I'm not even going to waste my time, been down this particular road before.

I do wish you well though, and hope that your beliefs and personal interpretation are on the side of the light. It sounds as though they are, for the most part, though your religious intolerance is slightly worrying.

 

[Jamanticus]

Wow. Those answers are truly shocking from someone who seemed to be fairly coherent at first. I barely even know where to begin.

Personally I believe the existence or non-existence of God is open to interpretation on so many levels it is very difficult to argue against it. However the literal truth of the bible is something very few Christians here in the UK believe, and I think they are in the minority worldwide as well. I don't, therefore, think that you can claim to be speaking on behalf of Christians as a whole, as your attitudes seem to tend towards the more extreme end. I don't even know many Muslims who go as far as you in some respects.

I'm not even going to attempt to argue with you on this, the level of suspension of disbelief required to interpret the bible literally makes my head hurt even just thinking about it. It does tell me pretty firmly, however, that you aren't open to rational debate, so I'm not even going to waste my time, been down this particular road before.

I do wish you well though, and hope that your beliefs and personal interpretation are on the side of the light. It sounds as though they are, for the most part, though your religious intolerance is slightly worrying.

You believe maximilian is extreme?!

Ha- Hahahahahaha!

Wait.......Hahahaha-Okay, I'm done.

You should come to a Southern Baptist sermon in the United States. There are many, many people who are a ton more extreme in their beliefs than maximilian.

Unless you weren't aiming at maximillian- in which case I apologise

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I'm not promoting tolerance. It won't exist between two disagreeing world views.
Similarly, I believe that the Bible is the truth, therefore it won't matter to me at all whatever lie or distortion is put on it (read - Catholic teaching) it's still a perversion, ignorant and heresy. All the definitions align with the uses. Feel free to start a Catholic thread.

No, this belongs here--I'm sure people are interested in how you view other Christian denominations. Could you answer that question? I imagine non-Christians would be very interested to see how the different Christian theologies view each other.

i'd just be thrilled if he would answer my questions that i brought up, sadly i don't think he will, last time he just started to insult me personally, yet i was only asking for a simple answer and never once made bad comments about him

tho dealing with the paradox you bring up Cheeze_Pavilion which is a paradox not merely seeming to be a paradox at first glance would be an interesting one

 

[maximilian]

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.

Isn't God showing himself to SaulPaul a forceful conversion enough? Is Saul a special exception to the Faith requirement that Jesus preaches about? You can't honestly claim that Saul just decided to become a Christian, divine intervention in his life lead him to it, that's as bad, if not worse, than Christians trying to convert people of other religions. It's directly undermining something that Jesus himself preached as core to the religion: Faith. You can't have Faith if God comes and shows himself to you.

God chooses who becomes Christian or not. All conversions are forced by that logic. Faith is what the result of that conversion is. Romans 9 is helpful. It's called predestination.

Ok, but why the cross? It was a horrible torture device. Why not use the Jesus Fish as your main symbol? Or why not use the Bible its self?

Good question. The early Christians just settled on that symbol. I think it's adhered to because of the severity of what it means - synonymous with the pain experienced on it.

Also another question, I have heard that Jesus said not to worship him or symbols. Is this true? If true, would not using a symbol and praying upon it, be an act of worshiping a symbol?

Yeah he said that. And yes, using a symbol and praying to it is idolatry. This happens a lot in Catholic churches and high Protestantism and is fairly dodgy. It all depends on where the prayer is directed though. It's okay to see a cross and be reminded of the sacrifice, and pray to Jesus, but it's when you pray to the cross, or can ONLY pray when you hold the cross, etc - that is unbiblical.

I also heard that he said that he said that you need not go to church to worship god. Is that true? If so, why are so many Christians required to go to church?

The bible tells us that our whole lives are worship. However, we go to church to get teaching, support, encouragement, to see our Christian friends, to praise God through song, to pray as a collective etc. It's an incredibly helpful experience.

ok see if you'll answer these or just blow me off and resort to personal attacks like you did before

1. how come christians believe that Jesus brought someone back to life after they died when it says no such thing in the bible. he raised someone from amongst the dead, which has a different connotation than bringing someone back to life

Read Luke 16, John 11 and 12. I don't see the semantic difficulties here.

2. how come one of the gospels is so different from the other ones?

They were different perspectives and written addressing different issues/audiences.

3. if there was 12 apostles how come there's only 4 gospels in the bible, why don't you recognize any of the other 8 that we know to exist?

Because only 4 wrote Gospels.

4. how come most christians refuse to believe that Jesus was an Essene and yet they have very similar beliefs of Jesus, including things such as divine births

Because he wasn't? Because He was Jewish Nazarene?

5. how come the resurrection and frankly the whole story of Jesus has very many parallels, some would say plagiarized, from earlier mythology such as Mythras?

There is not one story identical to that of the Bible in mythology. See Jungian archetypes and collective unconscious.

6. how come christians don't also honour John the Baptist as much as Jesus?

For the same reason John the Baptist didn't honour himself as much as Jesus. Because he wasn't the son of God come to die for the sins of the world.

7. how come Jesus and John the Baptist both have birthdays on the solstice, which are overly pagan holidays and have a lot to do with a venus cycle?

Most likely because the early Christian institution probably tried to overlap them to squash the pagan equivalent or stay in line with when people were already experiencing holidays.

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.

9. why do christians say that Jesus was born during a shekinah, the first one after the building of the Temple of Solomon, and yet think things such as the pentagram (a venus cycle) and something Jesus would have respected

I don't know what that question is...?

10. how come christians think the metal sign is a bad thing and yet it symbolizes a venus cycle, also the solstices and the birth of Jesus and John the Baptist

Generally because the pentagram is synonymous with the devil, according to revelation and popular culture.

I have a question for you. How do you reconcile the verses describing Jesus death in detail in Isaiah with the New Testament account 500 years later?

 

[maximilian]

Who exactly is required to go to Church anymore? There are plenty of religions that do see religious attendence as a requirement but the Christian one hasn't had that for about a hundred and fifty years. Some people feel a sense of moral obligation to do so, but it's not exactly a rquirement except in the most rare and extreme of Christian communities.

The thing is, if you're a Christian you're going to WANT to go to church. But that is a fascinating question to pose to non-christians in a christian culture. For reasons why church is good for Christians, I think I answered that on page 4.

Why is Yahweh such a paradoxical concept that fails to hold up to even the slighest scrutiny?
Also, why is your religion so theologically unstable.

Because it's all false and I'm trying to indoctrinate you to steal your money and kill gays while promoting medieval history.

 

[The Sorrow]

You think sin is inherent?

I'm speechless. I'm the biggest smartass in my current city of residence, and I'm speechless.
That's not just bullshit. That's the gleaming aurochs turd atop the mountain of excrement that is your argument.
Instead of explaining why Catholicism is inherently inferior to your view, you just say "no it doesn't".

You've been breaking down as these arguments have progressed and eschewed logic in favor of harping the same points again and again.
You've lost, Max.

 

[Jamanticus]

You think sin is inherent?

I'm speechless. I'm the biggest smartass in my current city of residence, and I'm speechless.
That's not just bullshit. That's the gleaming aurochs turd atop the mountain of excrement that is your argument.
Instead of explaining why Catholicism is inherently inferior to your view, you just say "no it doesn't".

You've been breaking down as these arguments have progressed and eschewed logic in favor of harping the same points again and again.
You've lost, Max.

The Bible states that sin is inherent, simple as that. It's not something that maximilian came up with- it's really a basic tenet of Christianity.

Honestly, what are words that a child is likely to learn first: "Mine, mine!" or "Here you go, you can have it."?

 

[theklng]

threads like these make me want to push sharp metal objects through my temples.

education has nothing to do with why you became christian. if you were raised otherwise or somewhere where society would have different rules, you'd be different. i'd like to rant on more about this from a psychological perspective, but you'd resent it and judge it, much like most anyone else frequenting these forums. my explanations would have been in vain and my time would have been wasted -- and i do not like to waste time.

i won't argue anything here, only say my opinion: discussing something as superficial as laws, moral ones (in this case, the bible) or other, is useless. neither party will leave more enlightened or better of, and neither party will change views or perspective based upon what either one says.

the ironic thing is, if there's something this icon that you call "the devil" has created, it would be the bible, purely to instigate fighting, murder, genocide and threads like these. i don't care for what is written as much as i care for the visible effect it has on people.

i reckon that i will see at least one post condemning or judging mine in the following thread. if i don't, it'd be the best wager i've ever lost.

 

[Tranka Verrane]

3: The Gospels aren't written by the apostles, they are non-contemporary accounts written down many years later. From memory the earliest is judged to have been written approximately 60 yeras after the time of Jesus. Very few people could write back then, and it is unlikely that any of the apostles could.

actually that's wrong, there are 8 other gospels, we've found them AND they are mentioned in history as well

4: Most of the religions on earth have parallels. The fact that similar religions around at the same time arrived at the same idea does not invalidate them, or mean that one cannot be 'the one true faith'.

5: Yes. Don't know exactly what point you are trying to make here, but yes. but see also point 4.

6: Because John The Baptist isn't Jesus? I suspect Jesus is revered more because he ended up having more political impact. Again, however, doesn't preclude him being the Son Of God as well.

really don't answer what you don't know, the Essenes are a sect of Judaism that were around during the time of christ

these 3 points belong together, funnily enough Islam recognizes both as equals

these also belong together and you're rather far off the mark on everything

I know who the Essenes are, thank you. Historically it's likely that John the Baptist was one, but that Jesus wasn't. They had some very strict beliefs and edicts which Jesus broke with abandon so if he was one he wasn't a very good one. It's more likely that he was a Pharisee. The point I was trying to make was that the original religion of Jesus has little bearing on his legacy.

The gospels (read 'good news') are texts written after the fact. Doesn't matter whether thare are 4, 14, or a hundred and forty. Again, the point I was making was that there is no direct connection between the Gospels and the apostles. People get mixed up because some of the names happen to be the same.

The 4 gospels that are in the new Testament are there because they happened to be the ones that people liked and kept reading from in early Christian meetings. Yes, there are many other accounts available. I will accept your figure of 8, though I suspect the real number is greater still.

Islam recognises a number of Christian prophets; Ibrahim, Noah, Isa... It doesn't accept the Bible for the very reasons so many atheists don't accept it; It is an interpreted work that has passed through many hands before we see the work before us today, translated, interpreted, retranslated, edited, excised and pronounced upon. The Quran was transcribed once, into one language, and only that original transcription and no translations are truly valid. As they were creating a religion after Christianity where do you suppose they got the idea that was necessary?

 

[RebelRising]

7: Do you believe the old and new testaments contain differing amounts of truth?

I believe they are to be read as they ask us to read them. I take them as fact however.

So? Is it how one takes it, or is it fact? One or the other man...



9: What is your attitude to the other Abrahamic religions?

Meh. They either haven't got the update or weren't happy with the real one. Doesn't change the fact that I believe they need to repent and believe. I don't hate them or anything.

I have just the slightest hunch that they could very well say the same about you guys.

10: Would it destroy your faith in God if you discovered for a fact that every event in the Bible is at best a distortion of the truth?

Depends who's claiming the distortion.

Lots of "depends" being thrown around, huh?



P.S. Unless I somehow missed it, you never answered my "image of God" question. Given how us Humans turned out, it would seem that God has a bit of a...poor "self-image."

I apologize if my arguments seem a bit aggravating, but I do so like to engage people.