Within the scope of Christianity, there are thousands of denominations and dozens of different doctrinal paradigms. There is disunity, and a lot of people disagree with one another. How is one to be genuinely Christian and yet resolve this?
He says: Most of them are wrong about things.
Hello, I'm Stan. You may remember me from other threads in MTGSalvation's debate forum, or from my blog, "Stan Means Rock." Do you know what annoys me? When mistakes, distortion, lies, poor philosophy, and commissions of logical fallacy by my Christian brethren are attributed to me. I'm a careful person -- when I realize I'm subscribing to bad philosophy or bad theology, I discard it. So even though the vast majority of Christians are not expert philosophers or theologians, and thus the charges against them are justified, when those attacks carry over to me I feel a bit "strawmanned."
This thread is your opportunity to ask me questions about Christianity, and I'll do my best to answer them without taking cheap cop-outs or refusing to bite the bullet. If applicable, I may even explain different Christians beliefs on the topic and the histories thereof. You can't lose!
My creed is orthodoxy (right teaching), not koinodoxy (common teaching). Thus you may find me disagreeing with the Christians you normally hang out with. If you're a Christian, you may even find me disagreeing with YOU!
Sure, I'll start off this thread. I've always had great respect for what you say, even if I can't always follow it.
So, how does one reconcile the idea of an all-loving God with natural disasters such as the earthquake in Sichuan or the floods in the Midwest? Why does God allow such catastrophes to happen?
Why did you bother to make this thread? People bash on everything. There is something illogical about every religion. People refuse to believe things when hard facts are thrown in there face, let alone because of what one person said.
People just need to let other people be whatever religion or notreligion they want to be.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Why did you bother to make this thread? People bash on everything. There is something illogical about every religion. People refuse to believe things when hard facts are thrown in there face, let alone because of what one person said.
People just need to let other people be whatever religion or notreligion they want to be.
I don't think he started this thread in order to convince someone to be a Christian or not. It seems to me that one constructive outcome would be for non-Christians to be able to better differentiate between what is 'true' for Christians in general and what is seen as being a Christian trait due to certain outspoken groups and individuals. Some of the answers the OP gives will probably be a matter of opinion but IMO anyone that comes here looking for hard answers is trolling
People bash on things when they associate those things with stupid people, and that's why a lot of people don't like Christianity or perhaps religion in general. However the truth is that there are just a lot of stupid people out there that follow various walks of life; if a person is critical enough, they can find a stupid person who believes something they don't, and then, if the observer is stupid enough, they can conclude that everyone with that belief is the same.
A question which I've always wondered and has directly to do with your first post:
With so many denominations of Christianity, I've heard several arguments of people saying that differing interpretations of the Bible are acceptable among different denominations as long as they believe in Christ and some other core issues which are too strong to ignore. What about some Christians that believe other kinds of Christians are 'wrong'? Are they wrong?
If the differing interpretations doesn't change the end result, why are there differing interpretations? Why does it matter?
This thread is going to take you a hell of a lot of time to write responses to :/
So, why did God not make us free willed, and yet non-sinners? God himself is as such, and Jesus is more or less so. And doing this doesn't seem to me to necessitate the destruction of free will.
What is a Christian's take on God being a metaphor for Mother Nature? Many things in the Bible are considered metaphors for everyday happenings, why can't God be a metaphor as well?
What exactly is a Baptist? How do their belief's differ from say a Catholic or Protestant?
I'll help with this one, as I attended a Baptist Church for several years.
(A word of warning: there are a ton of different flavors of Baptists. I can't tell you the exact beliefs of all the types, but I do know enough about the doctrines of the particular Church I attended to speak about their beliefs.)
Baptists are one of the many subdivisions of the Protestant Church. They tend to be big fans of evangelism, they believe in adult Baptism (mostly as a purely symbolic gesture), they believe in Salvation through faith alone, and they believe that the Bible is an absolute truth (the Word of God spoken through Man).
Quote from JodoYodo »
A question which I've always wondered and has directly to do with your first post:
With so many denominations of Christianity, I've heard several arguments of people saying that differing interpretations of the Bible are acceptable among different denominations as long as they believe in Christ and some other core issues which are too strong to ignore. What about some Christians that believe other kinds of Christians are 'wrong'? Are they wrong?
If the differing interpretations doesn't change the end result, why are there differing interpretations? Why does it matter?
"Wrong" - yes. Unforgivably so - no. Many of us feel that, if you have faith in Jesus Christ as a personal Savior, you are a brother/sister that we will be with for all eternity (the minimum requirement, so to speak). The other differences are much more minor, but they still matter. I was not happy with the explanation of why they matter that I wrote up, so I'll let extremestan cover it.
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
This thread is going to take you a hell of a lot of time to write responses to :/
So, why did God not make us free willed, and yet non-sinners? God himself is as such, and Jesus is more or less so. And doing this doesn't seem to me to necessitate the destruction of free will.
We don't have to sin, we just suck at avoiding it. Jesus could have sinned if he wanted (he was tempted to, but resisted). God didn't make us sinners, we choose to be. I don't think that it's logically possible for God to sin, as God always does God's will. If we didn't have the ability to choose to disobey God, would we have free will at all?
Quote from Pacman »
i think the most important question I can think of:
How do you see God?
I personally choose to believe that we as humans are limited to viewing and interacting with the world in the four (or whatever) dimensions (i.e. width, length, height, time), whereas God has no such restrictions. He exists "outside" of reality, so to speak. He exists as the Holy Trinity (which I'm not even gonna try to explain this late at night). He is perfectly loving and just. He has a sense of humor (see also: the platypus). He answers prayers, just not always how we want Him to.
I have a question for extremestan as well (this is mostly just curiosity on my part): How would you define "Christianity"?
We don't have to sin, we just suck at avoiding it. Jesus could have sinned if he wanted (he was tempted to, but resisted). God didn't make us sinners, we choose to be. I don't think that it's logically possible for God to sin, as God always does God's will. If we didn't have the ability to choose to disobey God, would we have free will at all?
We would have the ability, we just wouldn't sin. It's perfectly fine under stan's conception of free will.
I have wondered why there is such an abstract definition of 'the beginning'.
Eg. "In the beginning there was God". I find this hard to contemplate, because just like a lot of others i instantly think - where did god come from. I cannot accept the "always was and always will be" aspect that some Christian people i have some good discussions with cite. Maybe it is simply just beyond comprehension (another one of the rebuttals i get in some good discussions, always ends philosophically - grrrr) It irks me. Despite the fact that i do not think that there is enough evidence to justify the big bang theory (well, maybe it will be more defined when/ if they observe the Higg's Boson), at least it is arguable, and able to be discussed on a level greater than - "it is because it is".
[/rant]
Stan, other people have got some more ascetically interesting point, but if you do not reply to this with a post, could you PM me about it?
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
How much of the Bible does one have to believe as literal truth in order to be Christian?
Specifically, if one believed Jesus were metaphorical and not an actual historic person, or if He were an historic person, never literally ascended into Heaven as the Bible said, could one still be Christian? Or must one believe in the Resurrection in order to be so?
Sure, I'll start off this thread. I've always had great respect for what you say, even if I can't always follow it.
So, how does one reconcile the idea of an all-loving God with natural disasters such as the earthquake in Sichuan or the floods in the Midwest? Why does God allow such catastrophes to happen?
I'd be interested to hear your take on the problem of evil.
I prefer to address the Problem of Suffering, since the Problem of Evil gets bogged down in semantic disputes.
The solution to the Problem of Suffering involves recognizing God as parametric -- he revealed himself as having identity, attributes that can be conceptually discriminated against. This divine framework means that God is "subject to logic" so to speak; though he is omnipotent, he would be unable to lift unliftable-by-definition rocks, unable to complete the Impossible 10 Point Game, etc.
With that in mind, here is my solution, in both formal and verbose versions:
At what point does a proper theologian realize he's made one too many adjustments for the sake of credibility in the overall scheme of things?
In other words, what would it take to convince you?
When I go through lulls of apparent divine interaction, I start to lose emotional conviction and, I would assume, eventually intellectual conviction. So divine inactivity, or me critically evaluating my perception of apparent divine activity as mere superstition, would cause me to lose faith. That's because my faith, in all its doctrinal nuance, is a mere associative faith that hinges on divine interaction (I don't find it enough that the Bible is popular or that Christianity's philosophy resonates with me).
Why did you bother to make this thread? People bash on everything. There is something illogical about every religion. People refuse to believe things when hard facts are thrown in there face, let alone because of what one person said.
People just need to let other people be whatever religion or notreligion they want to be.
Believe it or not, it is possible to convince people of things. Even on the internet. And even with religion. And even logically and reasonably.
How can I know that Christianity is the true faith? Why should I believe this Bible over the Torah, or the Koran, or any other holy text?
The best way to compare different doctrinal systems is by examining their underlying philosophy. Everybody's on the same level with philosophy, and it's possible to reject a religion based on its nonsensical worldview (Hinduism, for instance, has bad philosophy in my opinion, regardless of any divine consideration).
Another way is to test God. Since he's parametric, you can test against his parameters. Most religions allow for divine interaction through prayer, which is easy to do and almost fun in interpreting apparent results. The key is to remain critical so as to avoid subscription to superstition.
What exactly is a Baptist? How do their belief's differ from say a Catholic or Protestant?
I grew up in the Conservative Baptist denomination! Then I doctrinally converted to Catholicism, and now I'm between many things.
Baptists believe in purely symbolic communion (no miraculous presence of Christ) unlike Lutherans, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and a purely demonstrative baptism (a show for fellow believers) rather than the regenerative ("born of water and spirit" in John 3) baptism of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Church of Christ and others.
They actually are Protestants because they derive much of their doctrine from the Reformation, including the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the sole source of doctrine) rather than Prima Scriptura (Scripture as the best authority for doctrine), and the doctrine of Sola Fide (Faith as the sole salvic indicator) rather than Fides Formata (Faith, alive through good deeds, as the salvic indicator (James 2, 3rd John)).
There were two main products of the Protestant Reformation: Lutherans and Calvinists ("Reform Christians"). Out of the Reform movement came Presbyterianism, then Congregationalism. Out of Congregationalism came the Baptists. Many Baptists are still Calvinists.
Fundamentalist Baptists do not like to be called Protestants, because they believe that they are the heirs to the original Christians through a consistent, hidden-to-history body of true believers. I don't believe this is reasonable.
A question which I've always wondered and has directly to do with your first post:
With so many denominations of Christianity, I've heard several arguments of people saying that differing interpretations of the Bible are acceptable among different denominations as long as they believe in Christ and some other core issues which are too strong to ignore. What about some Christians that believe other kinds of Christians are 'wrong'? Are they wrong?
If the differing interpretations doesn't change the end result, why are there differing interpretations? Why does it matter?
Some Christians see some doctrines as more essential than others, or the lack of belief in some doctrines as more spiritually and socially damaging than others.
Trinitarians, for instance, believe God's Triune nature is likely the most important special revelation about God ever received by man, and so they aren't too pleased when some folks reject that doctrine.
Many Protestants, especially in America, believe (I think erroneously) that Fides Formata as a salvic indicator is equivalent to "meriting salvation," which Paul writes against. So they might regard denominations who hold to Fides Formata (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox) as in serious error.
There are also other Protestants who believe that being "born again" refers to a faith confession rather than to baptism like Catholics, EO, Church of Christ, etc. believe. These folks call themselves "born-again Christians," and often talk about "inviting Jesus into your heart." To them, those who are not "born-again Christians" in the sense of a faith confession might not be experiencing salvation and thus might not be properly considered Christians.
I could go on and on. Basically, there are relatively frivolous divisions (like whether or not to use musical instruments during service) and what some might consider fatal divisions -- where one side believes the other side has abandoned something so fundamental to the New Covenant mechanism that they can no longer be considered Christians proper.
Divisive interpretations emerge from philosophical developments, social agents, egos, imaginations, and doctrinal enablers like Sola Scriptura.
i think the most important question I can think of:
How do you see God?
Through apparent interaction -- coincident prayer and relevant response, obedience and blessing, rebellion and discipline. I believe I have critically tested Yahweh, doing so with genuine sobriety and tempered judgment, and he passed those tests. I also find it intensely striking that I am unable to convey the sufficient nuance of my experiences with God to anyone else, and am forced to use general and insufficient terms. God, ever light-handed, won't let me be an agent of gross coercion. I can only but recommend other people try it, too.
I also see the universe, from the big bang, to the formation of planets, to abiogenesis, to the natural evolution of species, to be one fantastic device that needs a designer, since all causal order necessitates a selective reference (consider how natural selection works), and without something like God we find an infinite reference error no matter how much observation we make. It's the Unapproachable Gap by definition, and God fits such a thing perfectly.
So, why did God not make us free willed, and yet non-sinners? God himself is as such, and Jesus is more or less so. And doing this doesn't seem to me to necessitate the destruction of free will.
That's precisely what he's doing, apparently. But why didn't he snap his fingers and do it immediately? I find analogy in the creation of the universe. He has a thing for patient, procedural emergence; it is better somehow for mankind maximally-perfected to be forged over time rather than immediately instantiated.
What is a Christian's take on God being a metaphor for Mother Nature? Many things in the Bible are considered metaphors for everyday happenings, why can't God be a metaphor as well?
He could potentially be a metaphor, but it's hard to pin the God of the Bible down to any specific analogue. Nature itself, for instance, does not fit very well. Additionally, I would rather interpret things as possible metaphors only if I have reason to believe they were intended as such. God being metaphorical in all likelihood was not intended by most of the writers.
I have wondered why there is such an abstract definition of 'the beginning'.
Eg. "In the beginning there was God". I find this hard to contemplate, because just like a lot of others i instantly think - where did god come from. I cannot accept the "always was and always will be" aspect that some Christian people i have some good discussions with cite. Maybe it is simply just beyond comprehension (another one of the rebuttals i get in some good discussions, always ends philosophically - grrrr) It irks me. Despite the fact that i do not think that there is enough evidence to justify the big bang theory (well, maybe it will be more defined when/ if they observe the Higg's Boson), at least it is arguable, and able to be discussed on a level greater than - "it is because it is".
[/rant]
Stan, other people have got some more ascetically interesting point, but if you do not reply to this with a post, could you PM me about it?
- B
I'm afraid my answer would be something along the lines of what your Christian friends have told you, but it makes some sense that we can't comprehend such a thought fully. Why? Because we're causal beings! We make all of our decisions based on memory and past status. We are automatic expressions of the universe a moment ago.
I think it's interesting, however, that we have a lot easier of a time conceptualizing the possibility of true random anomaly, even though that would defy the causal paradigm as well. I think it's because we regard true random anomaly functionally equivalent to chaos as far as we care, even though chaos is a deterministic quality. It's a lot tougher with an uncaused evermaker, because we have nothing to meaningfully relate to it.
I believe we need the evermaker, though, because it solves not only the "proximal" infinite reference problem of causality, which some scientists like Sagan solve by proposing infinity itself, but also the "transcendent" infinite reference problem of causality working the way it does.
How much of the Bible does one have to believe as literal truth in order to be Christian?
Specifically, if one believed Jesus were metaphorical and not an actual historic person, or if He were an historic person, never literally ascended into Heaven as the Bible said, could one still be Christian? Or must one believe in the Resurrection in order to be so?
It depends who you ask, but I think a Christian ought to take as literal history everything in the Bible that was probably intended as literal history. A Christian is not just a Christ-fan -- he is a partner in the New Covenant. There's much more to the Gospels than "love your neighbor."
These are my "core four":
~ Christ's divinity
~ Christ's Hebrew messiahship
~ Christ's death and resurrection
~ An active New Covenant of Grace, manifesting in faith, hope and charity
I think there are many other vitally important doctrines that a true Christian ought subscribe to, but probably none as important as those.
I thought of a few more to ask while at work. What is the importance of living a life that is good from God's point of view? Would you say that your religious beliefs offer your life purpose, or does your purpose in life lie outside of that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Funny... I'd thought about starting up a thread like this myself a little while ago. But presently my doctrinal beliefs are in a healthy state of upheaval. Still, I'll interject here and there in defense of the core truths of Christianity.
I'm not seeing why the Hindu world view is any less logical than the Christian one.
What strikes me as the biggest logical deficiency of Hinduism has to do with the transmigration of souls from one species to another. Allegedly, a person with negative karma might get reincarnated as, say, a rat. Fine. But how does a rat then accumulate positive karma? How should animals that lack free will do things that could warrant promotions or demotions on the ladder of reincarnations? And if gods and godesses can incarnate (and it's believed that they do), and then have bad incarnations, then isn't it possible for gods and godesses to lose their status? There's nothing essential about anything -- no solid intellectual ground to get one's feet on. Indeed, from a certain angle, the doctrine of karma seems like merely an ad hoc attempt at justifying the blatant inhumanities inherent in the religio-political caste system.
Bonus Question:
How do you regard the contradictions in the Bible? (Treatment of Gentiles, Eye for an Eye and others.)
The same way that a physicist regards contradictions in physics: from a larger context.
If one takes the physical law that unlike charges attract and like charges repel, along with the fact that protons have a positive charge, then the statement that a stable atomic nucleus can contain multiple protons appears to be a contradiction. It is only once one introduces additional data about the strong and weak forces that the contradiction is resolved.
Likewise, most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible can be resolved by a trained theologian. Any that cannot may be taken to signify human ignorance rather than Scriptural error; although of course there comes a point, as in any human endeavor, where one must proceed (for at least a while) on faith alone.
@extremestan:
Having just talked about apparent contradictions, I'd like your take on two specific passages. How do you reconcile Matthew 12:32 with John 3:18?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
My argument is that you can't get genuine religious..... Look, Stan. We both know you know more about catholic doctrine than me. We both know you're a better arguer than me. We both know we can go up and down on this and you can maneuver me (or I can stumble over my own keyboard) into unreasonable and undefendable positions. I admit all of this, I see it all very clearly as I go back over the thread, you're very good. Catholic belief is self constant and well defined, and you know it better than me.
But, your base position is one of the most unreasonable explanations. There are many many reasons why the apostles, nearing the end of their life, would feel the need to compose the Bible as they did. There are many perfectly reasonable explanations why they wrote what they wrote. From them wanting to comfort others about death, to them really seeing Jesus go to the cross, thinking they saw Him die, and then seeing Him later.
All of these explanations do not need us to believe that He really died, went to hell, and came back to life. That is the most unreasonable of all of them. I believe you when you say that Catholic doctrine is self consistent. I believe you when you tell me that I have been unreasonable several times over the course of this thread. Its true. I have. But when it comes down to it, the base assumption of your argument is not a reasonable one. And you arguing it in a very reasonable and well written manner (which you have been), will not change that.
Its is some how an "non sequitur?" Is it so poorly constructed that there is nothing more to say about it?
I'd be interested to hear your take on the problem of evil.
Actually, Stan, I can field this one for you in a way that doesn't get bogged down in semantics.
Okay- to start out, let's have some definitions. Firstly, there is objective Good- any set of values, based on culture and religion, can be assigned to this, but since this is a specifically Christian thread, let's use some good old-fashioned Christian values: kindness, love, piety, and devotion. If you'd like, you can mentally add in one or more additional values to this list, but for the purpose of this mental exercise, it doesn't actually matter what that list is comprised of. Similarly, we have a list of object Evil- insert the Seven Deadly Sins here, for simplicity's sake- so that we have a functional working definition here.
Note: this example is actually a classical Zoroastrian philosophical example; it just works quite well at solving the good-and-evil problem for Christianity as well.
Say there's a hypothetical village comprised of people of objective Good. All of their ancestors are objectively Good, and they all live their lives in an objectively Good way. All of the villages around them are also objectively Good, and all of the villages around them, and so on. In short, the village has never experienced any sort of Evil, nor would it in the normal course of things.
Now, say that on the other side of the world, there's a similar village, except that it and everything about it are objectively Evil. Over the normal course of things, its inhabitants would never experience any sort of Good, et cetera.
If one were to take one individual from that village of evil and put him down inside the village of good, what would happen? How would the villagers react to him? Well, obviously, they would treat him as they would treat anyone else, with whatever values we have collectively decided represent objective good. Similarly, the man would behave in a manner that is evil, and would assume ulterior motives in the good villagers for every action that they took. To simplify, since no good villager has ever so much of heard as the potential concept of Evil of any sort, they would assume that the evil villager's actions are, in fact, good. Likewise, the evil villager, having no conception of Good, would assume that all of the good villagers are being evil, and would react in an appropriate way.
The solution to this impossibility is that you need to recognize that Evil defines Good, and vice versa- if you had never lived without love, how could you appreciate it (since it has been an assumed constant for your entire life)? Further, it is only be experiencing Evil that we are able to cherish and appreciate the Good that people work in our lives, and by which we are inspired to work similar acts in the lives of others.
Could God have made a world without Evil? Certainly. However, had he done so, the act of giving humanity free will would have been pointless; they would be unable to act in a manner that would displease him anyway. This is the true miracle of the Christian tradition- that God gave humanity free will in such a manner that would require them to choose Him knowing all alternatives thereto.
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
So I have this question that's been bugging me a lot about God. He's supposed to be this all-loving god who performs miracles and such. If God heals people's cancers, their diseases, their alcoholism, and stuff like that...why doesn't god heal people with missing limbs? I mean, everyone else gets their miracles? What about that war vet who defended his country in war. What about the child who lost his leg to a land mine? Why does god refuse to perform miracles for these people? Is there something wrong with amputees that God just ignores them?
Also I notice something. In that document in which you discuss Evil, you make glancing blows at the topic but don't really answer anything. Instead you just make excuses. What do you mean God can't fully manifest his "powers" that's some bullcrap I would watch on DBZ or another lame anime. What does he need to fly up next to the Sun and recharge? Be real, you are making excuses that no normal logical human would make.
I thought God was supposed to be perfect?
See my problem with your "theory" of Christianity (cause let's be honest, it's never been proven) is that you're telling me that Christianity is the one true Religion, when in reality it's just the most popular Religion (about 2 billion worshippers). Islam is a close second at 1 billion. I'm not sure how much of a historian you are, but I do know that Christians were the most frenzied at spreading their wonderful "God". Bloody wars included. Then we ask you to prove it, and instead you make excuses. You dance around the topic, and never give real answers. Instead you give these strange cop-outs. God cannot fully manifest? Must allow free will? No? Be real, please.
There is a lot of weird holier-than-thou stuff springing up.
When I go through lulls of apparent divine interaction, I start to lose emotional conviction and, I would assume, eventually intellectual conviction. So divine inactivity, or me critically evaluating my perception of apparent divine activity as mere superstition, would cause me to lose faith. That's because my faith, in all its doctrinal nuance, is a mere associative faith that hinges on divine interaction (I don't find it enough that the Bible is popular or that Christianity's philosophy resonates with me).
Is "divine interaction," in your opinion, something inherently unobservable? There is no literature (outside of philosophy, I would assume) on this phenomenon, and that fact above all relegates this sort of thinking in my mind to the category of "wishful."
I'm not seeing why the Hindu world view is any less logical than the Christian one.
Christians believe that good people go to heaven, bad go to hell.
Hindus believe that you are reborn, until you break the cycle.
Bonus Question:
How do you regard the contradictions in the Bible? (Treatment of Gentiles, Eye for an Eye and others.)
I feel I have to take issue with the first statement (and I'll take a crack at the bonus question too!)
Regarding the first statement: Christianity doesn't reward "good people." Its the classic deathbed conversion. If someone was a truly horrendously evil person, and yet in the last hour of their life truly came to be repentant, and converted to Christianity placing their full faith in Jesus, they would still go to heaven. In that way Christianity does not have a balancing scale where God looks to how good you were, but instead uses a binary "you are/are not a Christian." The catch their is its not "you proclaim/don't proclaim to be a Christian." It's whether you ACTUALLY are.
Regarding the bonus question:
I'll start off from the statement that I do not consider them to BE contradictions, and attempt to explain why (note I'm going on assumptions based on what I think you are refering to.. correct me if I am wrong).
The Old Testament contains mosaic law. Mosaic law (obviouslY) discriminated against gentiles, included Eye for an Eye, and other "harsh" aspects. The apparent contradiction here is (I think) with the concepts put for by Jesus himself about Love your enemy, etc etc.
The reason I do not view this as a logical fallacy is the purpose of each. The Mosaic law is essentially a Civil Code for a nation. It is all the laws, and regulations of the people of Israel. As such it sets out ways to interact, and results of certain actions. Jesus instead was talking about Ideals, and what we should be. Essentially: if we could do what Jesus taught then there would be no need for a civil code, or for penalties of any kind. Mosaic law is more of God recognizing we CAN'T be perfect, and giving the Israelites a framework.
That said I may have completely missed your point, and If I did I apologize
He says: Most of them are wrong about things.
Hello, I'm Stan. You may remember me from other threads in MTGSalvation's debate forum, or from my blog, "Stan Means Rock." Do you know what annoys me? When mistakes, distortion, lies, poor philosophy, and commissions of logical fallacy by my Christian brethren are attributed to me. I'm a careful person -- when I realize I'm subscribing to bad philosophy or bad theology, I discard it. So even though the vast majority of Christians are not expert philosophers or theologians, and thus the charges against them are justified, when those attacks carry over to me I feel a bit "strawmanned."
This thread is your opportunity to ask me questions about Christianity, and I'll do my best to answer them without taking cheap cop-outs or refusing to bite the bullet. If applicable, I may even explain different Christians beliefs on the topic and the histories thereof. You can't lose!
My creed is orthodoxy (right teaching), not koinodoxy (common teaching). Thus you may find me disagreeing with the Christians you normally hang out with. If you're a Christian, you may even find me disagreeing with YOU!
So, how does one reconcile the idea of an all-loving God with natural disasters such as the earthquake in Sichuan or the floods in the Midwest? Why does God allow such catastrophes to happen?
In other words, what would it take to convince you?
People just need to let other people be whatever religion or notreligion they want to be.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
I don't think he started this thread in order to convince someone to be a Christian or not. It seems to me that one constructive outcome would be for non-Christians to be able to better differentiate between what is 'true' for Christians in general and what is seen as being a Christian trait due to certain outspoken groups and individuals. Some of the answers the OP gives will probably be a matter of opinion but IMO anyone that comes here looking for hard answers is trolling
People bash on things when they associate those things with stupid people, and that's why a lot of people don't like Christianity or perhaps religion in general. However the truth is that there are just a lot of stupid people out there that follow various walks of life; if a person is critical enough, they can find a stupid person who believes something they don't, and then, if the observer is stupid enough, they can conclude that everyone with that belief is the same.
With so many denominations of Christianity, I've heard several arguments of people saying that differing interpretations of the Bible are acceptable among different denominations as long as they believe in Christ and some other core issues which are too strong to ignore. What about some Christians that believe other kinds of Christians are 'wrong'? Are they wrong?
If the differing interpretations doesn't change the end result, why are there differing interpretations? Why does it matter?
I WANT YOUR DEATH BARONS! Message me if you want to get rid of them!
So, why did God not make us free willed, and yet non-sinners? God himself is as such, and Jesus is more or less so. And doing this doesn't seem to me to necessitate the destruction of free will.
I'll help with this one, as I attended a Baptist Church for several years.
(A word of warning: there are a ton of different flavors of Baptists. I can't tell you the exact beliefs of all the types, but I do know enough about the doctrines of the particular Church I attended to speak about their beliefs.)
Baptists are one of the many subdivisions of the Protestant Church. They tend to be big fans of evangelism, they believe in adult Baptism (mostly as a purely symbolic gesture), they believe in Salvation through faith alone, and they believe that the Bible is an absolute truth (the Word of God spoken through Man).
"Wrong" - yes. Unforgivably so - no. Many of us feel that, if you have faith in Jesus Christ as a personal Savior, you are a brother/sister that we will be with for all eternity (the minimum requirement, so to speak). The other differences are much more minor, but they still matter. I was not happy with the explanation of why they matter that I wrote up, so I'll let extremestan cover it.
We don't have to sin, we just suck at avoiding it. Jesus could have sinned if he wanted (he was tempted to, but resisted). God didn't make us sinners, we choose to be. I don't think that it's logically possible for God to sin, as God always does God's will. If we didn't have the ability to choose to disobey God, would we have free will at all?
I personally choose to believe that we as humans are limited to viewing and interacting with the world in the four (or whatever) dimensions (i.e. width, length, height, time), whereas God has no such restrictions. He exists "outside" of reality, so to speak. He exists as the Holy Trinity (which I'm not even gonna try to explain this late at night). He is perfectly loving and just. He has a sense of humor (see also: the platypus). He answers prayers, just not always how we want Him to.
I have a question for extremestan as well (this is mostly just curiosity on my part): How would you define "Christianity"?
We would have the ability, we just wouldn't sin. It's perfectly fine under stan's conception of free will.
Eg. "In the beginning there was God". I find this hard to contemplate, because just like a lot of others i instantly think - where did god come from. I cannot accept the "always was and always will be" aspect that some Christian people i have some good discussions with cite. Maybe it is simply just beyond comprehension (another one of the rebuttals i get in some good discussions, always ends philosophically - grrrr) It irks me. Despite the fact that i do not think that there is enough evidence to justify the big bang theory (well, maybe it will be more defined when/ if they observe the Higg's Boson), at least it is arguable, and able to be discussed on a level greater than - "it is because it is".
[/rant]
Stan, other people have got some more ascetically interesting point, but if you do not reply to this with a post, could you PM me about it?
- B
Specifically, if one believed Jesus were metaphorical and not an actual historic person, or if He were an historic person, never literally ascended into Heaven as the Bible said, could one still be Christian? Or must one believe in the Resurrection in order to be so?
Read on...
I prefer to address the Problem of Suffering, since the Problem of Evil gets bogged down in semantic disputes.
The solution to the Problem of Suffering involves recognizing God as parametric -- he revealed himself as having identity, attributes that can be conceptually discriminated against. This divine framework means that God is "subject to logic" so to speak; though he is omnipotent, he would be unable to lift unliftable-by-definition rocks, unable to complete the Impossible 10 Point Game, etc.
With that in mind, here is my solution, in both formal and verbose versions:
http://extremestan.blogspot.com/2008/06/solution-to-suffering.html
When I go through lulls of apparent divine interaction, I start to lose emotional conviction and, I would assume, eventually intellectual conviction. So divine inactivity, or me critically evaluating my perception of apparent divine activity as mere superstition, would cause me to lose faith. That's because my faith, in all its doctrinal nuance, is a mere associative faith that hinges on divine interaction (I don't find it enough that the Bible is popular or that Christianity's philosophy resonates with me).
Believe it or not, it is possible to convince people of things. Even on the internet. And even with religion. And even logically and reasonably.
The best way to compare different doctrinal systems is by examining their underlying philosophy. Everybody's on the same level with philosophy, and it's possible to reject a religion based on its nonsensical worldview (Hinduism, for instance, has bad philosophy in my opinion, regardless of any divine consideration).
Another way is to test God. Since he's parametric, you can test against his parameters. Most religions allow for divine interaction through prayer, which is easy to do and almost fun in interpreting apparent results. The key is to remain critical so as to avoid subscription to superstition.
I grew up in the Conservative Baptist denomination! Then I doctrinally converted to Catholicism, and now I'm between many things.
Baptists believe in purely symbolic communion (no miraculous presence of Christ) unlike Lutherans, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and a purely demonstrative baptism (a show for fellow believers) rather than the regenerative ("born of water and spirit" in John 3) baptism of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Church of Christ and others.
They actually are Protestants because they derive much of their doctrine from the Reformation, including the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the sole source of doctrine) rather than Prima Scriptura (Scripture as the best authority for doctrine), and the doctrine of Sola Fide (Faith as the sole salvic indicator) rather than Fides Formata (Faith, alive through good deeds, as the salvic indicator (James 2, 3rd John)).
There were two main products of the Protestant Reformation: Lutherans and Calvinists ("Reform Christians"). Out of the Reform movement came Presbyterianism, then Congregationalism. Out of Congregationalism came the Baptists. Many Baptists are still Calvinists.
Fundamentalist Baptists do not like to be called Protestants, because they believe that they are the heirs to the original Christians through a consistent, hidden-to-history body of true believers. I don't believe this is reasonable.
Some Christians see some doctrines as more essential than others, or the lack of belief in some doctrines as more spiritually and socially damaging than others.
Trinitarians, for instance, believe God's Triune nature is likely the most important special revelation about God ever received by man, and so they aren't too pleased when some folks reject that doctrine.
Many Protestants, especially in America, believe (I think erroneously) that Fides Formata as a salvic indicator is equivalent to "meriting salvation," which Paul writes against. So they might regard denominations who hold to Fides Formata (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox) as in serious error.
There are also other Protestants who believe that being "born again" refers to a faith confession rather than to baptism like Catholics, EO, Church of Christ, etc. believe. These folks call themselves "born-again Christians," and often talk about "inviting Jesus into your heart." To them, those who are not "born-again Christians" in the sense of a faith confession might not be experiencing salvation and thus might not be properly considered Christians.
I could go on and on. Basically, there are relatively frivolous divisions (like whether or not to use musical instruments during service) and what some might consider fatal divisions -- where one side believes the other side has abandoned something so fundamental to the New Covenant mechanism that they can no longer be considered Christians proper.
Divisive interpretations emerge from philosophical developments, social agents, egos, imaginations, and doctrinal enablers like Sola Scriptura.
Through apparent interaction -- coincident prayer and relevant response, obedience and blessing, rebellion and discipline. I believe I have critically tested Yahweh, doing so with genuine sobriety and tempered judgment, and he passed those tests. I also find it intensely striking that I am unable to convey the sufficient nuance of my experiences with God to anyone else, and am forced to use general and insufficient terms. God, ever light-handed, won't let me be an agent of gross coercion. I can only but recommend other people try it, too.
I also see the universe, from the big bang, to the formation of planets, to abiogenesis, to the natural evolution of species, to be one fantastic device that needs a designer, since all causal order necessitates a selective reference (consider how natural selection works), and without something like God we find an infinite reference error no matter how much observation we make. It's the Unapproachable Gap by definition, and God fits such a thing perfectly.
That's precisely what he's doing, apparently. But why didn't he snap his fingers and do it immediately? I find analogy in the creation of the universe. He has a thing for patient, procedural emergence; it is better somehow for mankind maximally-perfected to be forged over time rather than immediately instantiated.
He could potentially be a metaphor, but it's hard to pin the God of the Bible down to any specific analogue. Nature itself, for instance, does not fit very well. Additionally, I would rather interpret things as possible metaphors only if I have reason to believe they were intended as such. God being metaphorical in all likelihood was not intended by most of the writers.
I'm afraid my answer would be something along the lines of what your Christian friends have told you, but it makes some sense that we can't comprehend such a thought fully. Why? Because we're causal beings! We make all of our decisions based on memory and past status. We are automatic expressions of the universe a moment ago.
I think it's interesting, however, that we have a lot easier of a time conceptualizing the possibility of true random anomaly, even though that would defy the causal paradigm as well. I think it's because we regard true random anomaly functionally equivalent to chaos as far as we care, even though chaos is a deterministic quality. It's a lot tougher with an uncaused evermaker, because we have nothing to meaningfully relate to it.
I believe we need the evermaker, though, because it solves not only the "proximal" infinite reference problem of causality, which some scientists like Sagan solve by proposing infinity itself, but also the "transcendent" infinite reference problem of causality working the way it does.
It depends who you ask, but I think a Christian ought to take as literal history everything in the Bible that was probably intended as literal history. A Christian is not just a Christ-fan -- he is a partner in the New Covenant. There's much more to the Gospels than "love your neighbor."
These are my "core four":
~ Christ's divinity
~ Christ's Hebrew messiahship
~ Christ's death and resurrection
~ An active New Covenant of Grace, manifesting in faith, hope and charity
I think there are many other vitally important doctrines that a true Christian ought subscribe to, but probably none as important as those.
I thought of a few more to ask while at work. What is the importance of living a life that is good from God's point of view? Would you say that your religious beliefs offer your life purpose, or does your purpose in life lie outside of that?
What strikes me as the biggest logical deficiency of Hinduism has to do with the transmigration of souls from one species to another. Allegedly, a person with negative karma might get reincarnated as, say, a rat. Fine. But how does a rat then accumulate positive karma? How should animals that lack free will do things that could warrant promotions or demotions on the ladder of reincarnations? And if gods and godesses can incarnate (and it's believed that they do), and then have bad incarnations, then isn't it possible for gods and godesses to lose their status? There's nothing essential about anything -- no solid intellectual ground to get one's feet on. Indeed, from a certain angle, the doctrine of karma seems like merely an ad hoc attempt at justifying the blatant inhumanities inherent in the religio-political caste system.
The same way that a physicist regards contradictions in physics: from a larger context.
If one takes the physical law that unlike charges attract and like charges repel, along with the fact that protons have a positive charge, then the statement that a stable atomic nucleus can contain multiple protons appears to be a contradiction. It is only once one introduces additional data about the strong and weak forces that the contradiction is resolved.
Likewise, most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible can be resolved by a trained theologian. Any that cannot may be taken to signify human ignorance rather than Scriptural error; although of course there comes a point, as in any human endeavor, where one must proceed (for at least a while) on faith alone.
@extremestan:
Having just talked about apparent contradictions, I'd like your take on two specific passages. How do you reconcile Matthew 12:32 with John 3:18?
Actually, Stan, I can field this one for you in a way that doesn't get bogged down in semantics.
Okay- to start out, let's have some definitions. Firstly, there is objective Good- any set of values, based on culture and religion, can be assigned to this, but since this is a specifically Christian thread, let's use some good old-fashioned Christian values: kindness, love, piety, and devotion. If you'd like, you can mentally add in one or more additional values to this list, but for the purpose of this mental exercise, it doesn't actually matter what that list is comprised of. Similarly, we have a list of object Evil- insert the Seven Deadly Sins here, for simplicity's sake- so that we have a functional working definition here.
Note: this example is actually a classical Zoroastrian philosophical example; it just works quite well at solving the good-and-evil problem for Christianity as well.
Say there's a hypothetical village comprised of people of objective Good. All of their ancestors are objectively Good, and they all live their lives in an objectively Good way. All of the villages around them are also objectively Good, and all of the villages around them, and so on. In short, the village has never experienced any sort of Evil, nor would it in the normal course of things.
Now, say that on the other side of the world, there's a similar village, except that it and everything about it are objectively Evil. Over the normal course of things, its inhabitants would never experience any sort of Good, et cetera.
If one were to take one individual from that village of evil and put him down inside the village of good, what would happen? How would the villagers react to him? Well, obviously, they would treat him as they would treat anyone else, with whatever values we have collectively decided represent objective good. Similarly, the man would behave in a manner that is evil, and would assume ulterior motives in the good villagers for every action that they took. To simplify, since no good villager has ever so much of heard as the potential concept of Evil of any sort, they would assume that the evil villager's actions are, in fact, good. Likewise, the evil villager, having no conception of Good, would assume that all of the good villagers are being evil, and would react in an appropriate way.
The solution to this impossibility is that you need to recognize that Evil defines Good, and vice versa- if you had never lived without love, how could you appreciate it (since it has been an assumed constant for your entire life)? Further, it is only be experiencing Evil that we are able to cherish and appreciate the Good that people work in our lives, and by which we are inspired to work similar acts in the lives of others.
Could God have made a world without Evil? Certainly. However, had he done so, the act of giving humanity free will would have been pointless; they would be unable to act in a manner that would displease him anyway. This is the true miracle of the Christian tradition- that God gave humanity free will in such a manner that would require them to choose Him knowing all alternatives thereto.
Does that answer your question, Zith?
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Also I notice something. In that document in which you discuss Evil, you make glancing blows at the topic but don't really answer anything. Instead you just make excuses. What do you mean God can't fully manifest his "powers" that's some bullcrap I would watch on DBZ or another lame anime. What does he need to fly up next to the Sun and recharge? Be real, you are making excuses that no normal logical human would make.
I thought God was supposed to be perfect?
See my problem with your "theory" of Christianity (cause let's be honest, it's never been proven) is that you're telling me that Christianity is the one true Religion, when in reality it's just the most popular Religion (about 2 billion worshippers). Islam is a close second at 1 billion. I'm not sure how much of a historian you are, but I do know that Christians were the most frenzied at spreading their wonderful "God". Bloody wars included. Then we ask you to prove it, and instead you make excuses. You dance around the topic, and never give real answers. Instead you give these strange cop-outs. God cannot fully manifest? Must allow free will? No? Be real, please.
Is "divine interaction," in your opinion, something inherently unobservable? There is no literature (outside of philosophy, I would assume) on this phenomenon, and that fact above all relegates this sort of thinking in my mind to the category of "wishful."
I feel I have to take issue with the first statement (and I'll take a crack at the bonus question too!)
Regarding the first statement: Christianity doesn't reward "good people." Its the classic deathbed conversion. If someone was a truly horrendously evil person, and yet in the last hour of their life truly came to be repentant, and converted to Christianity placing their full faith in Jesus, they would still go to heaven. In that way Christianity does not have a balancing scale where God looks to how good you were, but instead uses a binary "you are/are not a Christian." The catch their is its not "you proclaim/don't proclaim to be a Christian." It's whether you ACTUALLY are.
Regarding the bonus question:
I'll start off from the statement that I do not consider them to BE contradictions, and attempt to explain why (note I'm going on assumptions based on what I think you are refering to.. correct me if I am wrong).
The Old Testament contains mosaic law. Mosaic law (obviouslY) discriminated against gentiles, included Eye for an Eye, and other "harsh" aspects. The apparent contradiction here is (I think) with the concepts put for by Jesus himself about Love your enemy, etc etc.
The reason I do not view this as a logical fallacy is the purpose of each. The Mosaic law is essentially a Civil Code for a nation. It is all the laws, and regulations of the people of Israel. As such it sets out ways to interact, and results of certain actions. Jesus instead was talking about Ideals, and what we should be. Essentially: if we could do what Jesus taught then there would be no need for a civil code, or for penalties of any kind. Mosaic law is more of God recognizing we CAN'T be perfect, and giving the Israelites a framework.
That said I may have completely missed your point, and If I did I apologize
Eh?
meaning that Christ was the Messiah prophesied about by the Hebrew prophets.