Ask a Christian Theologian

[The Sorrow]

Children are blank slates. You can lead an infant down the path of righteousness.
God murdered beings that had a chance to become pure. How's that for kind and loving?

Oh, couldn't he have, I don't know, shown them the way instead of killing them? I thought he was all-powerful!
Hobson's choice.

Oh, and theking: you just said the smartest thing in the whole damn thread.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

To the OP: What made you decide to embrace the Christian religion? (Sorry if this has been asked before-- I lack the attention span to read through 5 pages of religious flame-war.)

 

[Tranka Verrane]

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 someone else 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.

I'd go in with you on that bet.

 

[Amnestic]

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.

Doesn't that infringe upon free will to choose our path if God chooses who becomes Christian or doesn't? Does that not also mean that God expressly created people who aren't Christians with the fate of going to Hell? How can you defend a supposedly omnibenevolent God if he creates people with the express purpose of sending them to hell in the end?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...?

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

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.

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

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?

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

 

[Jamanticus]

Children are blank slates. You can lead an infant down the path of righteousness.
God murdered beings that had a chance to become pure. How's that for kind and loving?

Oh, couldn't he have, I don't know, shown them the way instead of killing them? I thought he was all-powerful!
Hobson's choice.

Oh, and theking: you just said the smartest thing in the whole damn thread.

I counter your tabula rasa argument with this one: Ask any nurse in a hospital who's had the duty of taking care of all the newborn children whether they had different personalities. The answer will most certainly be that each newborn baby they've looked after has indeed had a unique personality.

This is why I don't subscribe to the whole tabula rasa thing (I did for a while, but not anymore, as I've spoken with too many of said nurses)

Now, I know that doesn't directly tie in with humanity's inherently sinful nature, but I wanted to bring it up anyway.

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.

I think I can answer this one with a bit of certainty.

Humans being created in God's image does not mean that they were created to look like God or anything like that.

Instead, humans were created with similar aspects to God; they had a degree of authority over their environment, they had immortal souls, etc.

The ability to choose whether to do good and evil is, according to the Bible, the reason Man got itself in such deep trouble (sin)

 

[RebelRising]

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.

Doesn't that infringe upon free will to choose our path if God chooses who becomes Christian or doesn't? Does that not also mean that God expressly created people who aren't Christians with the fate of going to Hell? How can you defend a supposedly omnibenevolent God if he creates people with the express purpose of sending them to hell in the end?

I second this inquiry.

 

[maximilian]

So you a christian yet you don't believe in the bibles teachings.

I do. Where have I said otherwise?

Maybe you can actually answer MY question.

Seeing as how you've never seen God in the flesh (loose sense of the word), and lot of Christians believe that he is purely an ethereal or metaphorical figure, how exactly can you say that We are made in the image of Him, and not the other way around? The fact we are all sinners also raises some big questions about the Big Guy himself.

Good question. Essentially it's a question of chronology and status. The Bible states that we are God's creation (status to God and therefore we must be based on him) and that He is perfect. HOWEVER, we also "fell" at temptation and this is where sin entered the world. If God is perfect, and we sinned, then He can still be perfect while we can be sinful.

Because religion is based on people's opinions, prejudices and motivations. Even if there was a God, it would only be a fantastical embodiment of nature and the universe, kind of like Taoism.

It seems silly to me of this idea that an all-powerful, universe-creating deity would be so embroiled in humans' dealing and emotions.

Read OP.

You're only digging yourself in deeper dude...you are going have to fabricate another idea to get this back on track.

Read OP. Go "destroy religion" somewhere with that intent clearly labeled on the door. You either stop posting, post with the original instructions, or submit to being unable to read and an ignorant troll (because while I'm incredibly stupid, I can STILL READ).

I think RebelRising just won the thread.

Read OP/haha.

Maximillian, I've got a question about the Trinity: Now, is the Trinity three different facets of God, or is it three discrete beings?

Good question!
The trinity is a tough beast namely because we are going into the "nature of God" territory which is sometimes hard for us to grasp. It is described as each part being individual while each part being whole. There is also a status that each is ascribed (the son is subordinate to the father). The best I can do really is give a crude analogy:
imagine that each part of the trinity is each part of an egg - the shell, yolk and white - father, son and holy ghost - each together form an egg/God. And that is where the analogy stops or else it gets too semiotically inclined and becomes misleading. The dilemma is that he is both the individual parts and the whole at the same time - something that can only be done logically, outside of time.

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?

Essentially, what I meant is that my parents would advise me not to smoke, have lots of promiscuous sex, swear etc BUT they weren't Christians and this didn't guide their decision making. I included this caveat, because I often hear "you're just Christian because you were raised in a Christian family and your parents were."

"Morals" aren't necessarily inherent to religion, are they?

I think everyone has a sense of conscience and right and wrong.

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?

My belief that all humans have some form of moral code generally adds to my view that we were designed to have an inbuilt idea of what is sinful and what is not (with the sin eroding the balance sometimes). I wouldn't say my atheist friends don't have morals, I'd only say that they are kept accountable to them by other humans (including themselves). I might argue that someone living a life of devotion to God might be more inclined to stick to their morals, but I don't think atheists are morally handicapped. Anyway, it is often situational to which side "morals" are viewed from.

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?

From secular logic, I can. However, as a Christian I fundamentally believe it would be selfish of me NOT to tell others what I feel so convicted by. If we turn out to be right (haters will hate) then I would feel implicit in my selfishness to not share the good news.

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?

You're seeing faith from a secular, materialistic, postmodern world view in which it is a handbag to the owner. Essentially, once you have a faith, you have it because you are so convicted by the tenets of it that you hold to it no matter what (call it ignorance, that's the severity of it). What you are seeing is the afteraffect of having that faith - the badge of goodworks/comfort etc that we display as a sign of our faith. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not a Christian to be comforted and do good works or get some power trip, I'm a Christian because I genuinely believe that I'm sinful etc - the whole Christian message. And as a result, eternal life is the highest stake anyone could ever introduce to my earthly life.

A pleasure to answer your questions.

Thanks![/quote]

 

[The Sorrow]

Jamanticus, you have a good point, but even if they aren't blank slates, they can be molded.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Children are blank slates. You can lead an infant down the path of righteousness.
God murdered beings that had a chance to become pure. How's that for kind and loving?

Oh, couldn't he have, I don't know, shown them the way instead of killing them? I thought he was all-powerful!
Hobson's choice.

Oh, and theking: you just said the smartest thing in the whole damn thread.

I counter your tabula rasa argument with this one: Ask any nurse in a hospital who's had the duty of taking care of all the newborn children whether they had different personalities. The answer will most certainly be that each newborn baby they've looked after has indeed had a unique personality.

This is why I don't subscribe to the whole tabula rasa thing (I did for a while, but not anymore, as I've spoken with too many of said nurses)

Now, I know that doesn't directly tie in with humanity's inherently sinful nature, but I wanted to bring it up anyway.

I'd be interested to hear from one of these nurses how they are able to recognize a "personality" from a little creature who does nothing but cry all day. At this stage in life I would attribute any differences in behavior to chemical imbalances.

 

[npc255]

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.

 

[The Sorrow]

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.

 

[Tranka Verrane]

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

Oh I don't doubt it. He is just to the right, though, of the theologian I can hold a meningful discourse with. The downward slope of the bell curve, if you will. It is an argument I relish in person but I'm too lazy to type a full refutation in an internet forum. I got my degree and do my best not to do that kind of thing anymore.

I gave up teaching RE because I got tired of being an apologist for the religious. Not all points of view are equally valid. Sometimes when someone thinks they are a lemon you have to point out that the muddy puddle they are sitting in is not, in fact, a gin and tonic. I am quite aware that much more extreme religious views exist, and the fact that so many of them live in the 'educated' country that is the US is part of why the rest of the world views you with such suspicion. I was just hoping that for once a thread could be lead by someone with a reasoned perspective rather than blind faith.

 

[Jamanticus]

Jamanticus, you have a good point, but even if they aren't blank slates, they can be molded.

Thank you. And you are right, if people are brought up to think and behave in a certain way, then they'll certainly be more likely to do said thinking and behaving in that certain way.

You have a good point too, Sorrow.

 

[RebelRising]

Okay, thought I'd retry this thread now that the other one has died.

Basically, feel free to ask me anything about the Christian faith - how it works, why we believe what we believe, technicalities of faith etc. Essentially, I'll explain to you from a Christian perspective. This is an attempt at an intelligent conversation between a Christian and a non-Christian to clear up different issues.

What I am not here for is to be abused or argued with, because I am presenting my faith - take it or leave it. If you don't have the respect and courtesy to be civil then I won't reply to your question. That said, the more challenging or surprising the question, the more of a pleasure this will be. Also, I won't take kindly to baiting questions eg. "why do you believe stupid stuff/why are you an idiot/why don't Christians stone homosexuals etc"

If you ask a question, then understand that what I have given you is what I believe and the Christian perspective. You may disagree, but the point of this thread isn't to argue over the validity of my faith, but to actually find out what Christians believe.

Similarly, please don't make this another prop 8/gay marriage related thread; we have numerous running at this time.

Essentially, you respect me and I respect you!

Lastly, my background:

I have a great interest in my faith and the theology of it to a point where I received a degree in it from a respected university.
I spend most of my time between Australia and England.
I am a reformed, evangelical, conservative Christian. (aka bible based)
I became a Christian at the age of 17, having been raised in a moralistic environment.
My passions are psychology, writing, literature, fashion modeling, aesthetic, industrial design, video games, art, fitness/health and my girlfriend.

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.

 

[Amnestic]

I gave up teaching RE because I got tired of being an apologist for the religious.

Tangential question: Teaching Religious Education (IE about religions) or Philosophy(about the philosophies of people, not just those of religions)? Having just finished a Philosophy and Ethics course, I can safely say it was one of the best classes I ever took and both my teachers professed their enjoyment of teaching my class.

We were the "Special Class" though, infamous for our...well, eccentricities would be a soft way of wording it.

 

[RebelRising]

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.

I like you, my good man. Want to be friends?

 

[maximilian]

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.

Because in the great words of Run DMC: "because it's like that and that's the way it is."

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.

God can but God doesn't have to. He chose to do it that way. I can't change the Bible around what you think - I can just present it. Presentation style aside, his points are biblical. Omnipotence doesn't mean omniaction. Why would people come to faith if there was no sin present in the world? That is why heaven exists.
I'm sorry if this isn't helpful, but I can't really change the answer to make it fit your wants.

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.

I'm using nonchristian friendly terminology. And yeah, everything clashes.

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.

That's with a secular world view that the meaning of life is earthly happiness. You get what it says on the tin, and I'm not into the business of lying to ease tension/conflict. You don't have to accept it, just don't bother yelling me down using your own world view. It's as though I try to explain that God exists to you because the earth exists. It's an argument that only works in reinforcing your own view.

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

Good, want to read the OP (maybe I should hotkey that phrase)? I've talked with and discussed my faith with hundreds if not thousands of atheists - this essentially means that I've heard it all before which is why I placed that caveat on the OP. You want to argue validity, do it somewhere else.
Read original OP.

 

[The Sorrow]

Friend? YAAAY!