Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How Did Paul Get Christianity so Horribly Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Did Paul Get Christianity so Horribly Wrong?

    I'm wondering how our more pacificst Twebbers reconcile Paul's teachings with the alleged pacivity of Jesus.

    Even Paul's initiation into Christianity came about through a somewhat violent intervention from Christ.

    Did Paul go off the deep end with his references to "fighting a fight" and "warfare" and the "Armor of God"...
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    This is sort of ...vague.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      This is sort of ...vague.
      It has to do with Sam saying that Jesus explicitly taught an extreme form of pacifism that even lethal violence to save someone else's life is wrong.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        It has to do with Sam saying that Jesus explicitly taught an extreme form of pacifism that even lethal violence to save someone else's life is wrong.
        Not so much Sam, though that's what triggered it in my thinking, but some of the Pastors at last week's hearing, as well. In fact, moreso, because they, like Sam, opposed the Pastor Protection bill with goofy accusations like "we're slamming the door of the Church in the faces of these beautiful people whom Christ loved".
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          It has to do with Sam saying that Jesus explicitly taught an extreme form of pacifism that even lethal violence to save someone else's life is wrong.
          Why does that part remind me of the ending of a certain recent superhero movie and fan reactions to it? Of course one can be annoyed at a film maker putting a fictional character in that situation, and real life is more complicated. Are there really people that think you should allow the bad guy to kill you or others instead of possibly killing him when there is no other option?
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #6
            I have always thought that on a personal level, we should practice non-violence except in the case of defending the lives of ourselves and others.
            And on a government level (police, military) that they are allowed to use violence in defense of others and as in Romans 13

            3Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

            (of course some idiots try to use this to mean Paul meant to submit to any government, even evil like the Nazi's - but that is not what he is saying. When a government uses its authority to keep the peace and protect its citizens, then it might need to use violence to do so, and to punish those who break the law)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I'm wondering how our more pacificst Twebbers reconcile Paul's teachings with the alleged pacivity of Jesus.

              Even Paul's initiation into Christianity came about through a somewhat violent intervention from Christ.

              Did Paul go off the deep end with his references to "fighting a fight" and "warfare" and the "Armor of God"...
              I don't know how anyone can interpret Luke 22:36 as anything other than self defense. Or John 18:10, where Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away but not to get rid of it. That seems to go well with Luke 22:36. How about Matthew 8:5-13? Jesus talks about a Roman centurion having a greater faith than anyone else in Israel. This is a person who has probably killed numerous people for the spontaneous will of a pagan emperor. Did Jesus tell this centurion to quit his job? No.

              I think people forget that a lot of Christ's commandments were situational. Only applying to the person he was speaking too at the time.
              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Not so much Sam, though that's what triggered it in my thinking, but some of the Pastors at last week's hearing, as well. In fact, moreso, because they, like Sam, opposed the Pastor Protection bill with goofy accusations like "we're slamming the door of the Church in the faces of these beautiful people whom Christ loved".
                I honestly don't see what that has to do with pacifism... can you help me draw the connection?
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I have always thought that on a personal level, we should practice non-violence except in the case of defending the lives of ourselves and others.
                  And on a government level (police, military) that they are allowed to use violence in defense of others and as in Romans 13

                  3Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

                  (of course some idiots try to use this to mean Paul meant to submit to any government, even evil like the Nazi's - but that is not what he is saying. When a government uses its authority to keep the peace and protect its citizens, then it might need to use violence to do so, and to punish those who break the law)
                  The problem is that what constitutes evil is often subjective, especially in a fallen world. The nazis truly believed that what they were doing was not evil but for the benefit of German society. That's why Paul's Romans 13 is so goofy (not to mention just historically wrong).


                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I'm wondering how our more pacificst Twebbers reconcile Paul's teachings with the alleged pacivity of Jesus.

                  Even Paul's initiation into Christianity came about through a somewhat violent intervention from Christ.

                  Did Paul go off the deep end with his references to "fighting a fight" and "warfare" and the "Armor of God"...
                  This has to be a rhetorical question. Paul was speaking spiritually in those passages (i.e. 2 Cor 10:4).

                  My view is that Jesus taught pacifism. There's no way around it. But since we're sinners in a brutal and harsh world, it's virtually impossible for us to follow, hence the reason Jesus died and we need grace. It's also similar with what Jesus taught about finances, which is another difficult aspect of his teaching we struggle with. Did he really command us not to store wealth or worry about our financial future in such a materialistic orientated world? Yes. But it's not practical for us, not because Jesus' teaching is impractical but because we're miserable sinners living to the contrary of what he taught because of our sin. IMO, admitting that we simply fall short of a lot of his commands is much better (though is spiritually painful for us to admit because of our pride) than trying to squirm around what Jesus meant and attempting to find justifications to support an argument of why what it seems like he meant he didn't really mean. However, it's also equally wrong for another Christian to try and throw Jesus' teaching in our face just to support their own view (ESPECIALLY a political one) because they aren't living to the fullest of what Jesus taught either, therefore they're a hypocrite.
                  Last edited by seanD; 04-28-2015, 06:47 PM. Reason: grammar word confusion
                  "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    This has to be a rhetorical question.
                    Of course.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I still don't get why Sean feels comfortable discounting Romans 13 as just wrong, but gets on me for my views on Genesis because of how Paul uses them in typology... in Romans.
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        I still don't get why Sean feels comfortable discounting Romans 13 as just wrong, but gets on me for my views on Genesis because of how Paul uses them in typology... in Romans.
                        Paul wasn't using typology; his belief in Genesis is what he understood about the historical origins of mankind and thus applied it to his theology. Hey, if you're willing to admit Paul was wrong about his understanding of the origin of man and death, more power to you. In fact, I can respect that more than trying to weasel out of it and argue Paul didn't mean what he clearly did mean. If you can keep your faith intact with that glaring theological problem staring you in the face, then hey brother, you got faith of steel and I salute you. But I don't think even you could honestly put that problem on par with the problem of Romans 13 with a straight face.
                        "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          The problem is that what constitutes evil is often subjective, especially in a fallen world. The nazis truly believed that what they were doing was not evil but for the benefit of German society. That's why Paul's Romans 13 is so goofy (not to mention just historically wrong).
                          lol
                          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            I honestly don't see what that has to do with pacifism... can you help me draw the connection?
                            Just want you to know I'm not hiding from this -- it's actually made me think a great deal.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So Romans 13 is "historically wrong" because Sean doesn't like it?

                              Sean, do you do that with the rest of the bible? Just decide what parts you like and accept, and what parts you don't like and reject?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Ana Dragule, 11-13-2020, 01:47 AM
                              2 responses
                              31 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 11-11-2020, 03:18 PM
                              3 responses
                              41 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Christian3  
                              Started by mossrose, 11-08-2020, 03:50 PM
                              1 response
                              28 views
                              5 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Faber, 11-06-2020, 11:51 AM
                              1 response
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by DesertBerean, 11-02-2020, 02:57 PM
                              Working...
                              X