Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

My brief (and polemical) thought about Christianity...

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

  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Yes, this a problem, but nonetheless There is a consistency if the traditional churches of Christianity, which make up by far the majority of Christians in the world.
    Do you mean ''of'' instead of ''if'' in the sentence above?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    JP Holding's short e-book on the Trinity explains it in a way that even I can understand. (Though the obvious question is that if his interpretation is correct, why did the early church fathers have so much trouble understanding it?)
    You need to read up on the first 250 years of your religion and the numerous different beliefs/ideas about the nature of the Christ and his relationship with the Father. Christianity was entirely fluid in those first two and a half centuries and different Christian communities had their own scriptures and their own beliefs on those issues. The proto-orthodox group was among the main groups by the early fourth century but it was not the dominant group. At the time of the First Council of Nicaea there was no “correct” Christianity. That is why Constantine called the council to bring about some conformity into the new religion and thus uphold political stability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Old does not equal wrong, or bad.

    New does not equal correct, or good.
    Yeah, the same way popular does not equal correct, or good. I actually agree with your post there. :)

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Old does not equal wrong, or bad.

    New does not equal correct, or good.

    You mean we can't just dismiss everything Shunya says up front, because he's old?

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The problem is the dominant doctrines and dogma such as the Virgin Birth, sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and Original Sin, are based, are grounded in versions of ancient tribal beliefs and culture of the Middle East.

    Old does not equal wrong, or bad.

    New does not equal correct, or good.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Dear Twebbers,

    Christian doctrine cannot be true. First off, there are dozens, hundreds of Christian doctrines which are mutually exclusive. Two, they are full of contradictions. And third, because truth is the relation between description and that which is described. Well, a large chunk of Christian doctrine is about Christian doctrine. Thus, it is self-referential and leads nowhere.

    Comments?
    Yes, this a problem, but nonetheless There is a consistency if the traditional churches of Christianity, which make up by far the majority of Christians in the world. The problem is the dominant doctrines and dogma such as the Virgin Birth, sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, and Original Sin, are based, are grounded in versions of ancient tribal beliefs and culture of the Middle East.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2020, 10:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Perhaps you missed it, but I provided an examble of why your assertion was absurd. I have no idea why you're revisiting this. You may also want to brush up on the meaning of "absurd"; in fairness, you're not a native English speaker.
    Not an error on my end this time. Aren't absurd and nonsensical the same thing? Thanks for trying to be kind, at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    It does no good just to assert that my assertion is absurd without justification. That makes your assertion just as ''absurd'' as mine.
    Perhaps you missed it, but I provided an examble of why your assertion was absurd. I have no idea why you're revisiting this. You may also want to brush up on the meaning of "absurd"; in fairness, you're not a native English speaker.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    All I see in the OP is an assertion which is on the face of it absurd.
    It does no good just to assert that my assertion is absurd without justification. That makes your assertion just as ''absurd'' as mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rushing Jaws
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    JP Holding's short e-book on the Trinity explains it in a way that even I can understand. (Though the obvious question is that if his interpretation is correct, why did the early church fathers have so much trouble understanding it?)
    1. Because they lacked the advantage of hindsight that succeeding generations possess; and because they had to do the spade-work of deciding what assertions about God were orthodox, & which were not.
    2. Errors are very often not at all easy to identify - especially when, in a given context, they are parts of a truth. Christ is less than the Father - according to His Humanity. It is not obvious that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father - in His Divinity.
    3. Further difficulties arise from the unsystematic character of the Biblical texts; and from uncertainties as how they should be interpreted.
    4. Knowledge and understanding of the ideas - and mistakes - of the past, is a valuable help to discerning better answers in the present.
    5. They did not originally have a sufficient and adequate vocabulary to express what they meant: which is why a word such as *homoousios*, “consubstantial”, was borrowed from usage outside Scripture, to express a truth implicit in Scripture.
    6. The loss of contact with the Church’s roots in Jewish culture presumably played a part.
    7. One could also ask why the Apostles did not at once see all the implications of Christ. Much that Christians hold as doctrine is not explicit in the Bible.

    This is partly why certain Churches place a very high value on Tradition.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-24-2019, 08:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Don't bother taking anything demi-conservative says seriously. He's only here to troll.
    You mean he is only HERE (my thread) to troll, or he's a troll in the forum in general?

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I've made this point before, but many many years ago I was part of a cult, and one of the cult's main talking points for proving that IT was the truth and that Christianity was a lie was that there were so many Christian denominations with numerous mutually exclusive doctrines. And I believed this. Until I left the cult, and did some seeking myself. And after checking out a few other religions and non-religions I found myself coming back to Christianity and seeing how screwed up all of these multiple denominations with all of their mutually exclusive doctrines were. And to my shock I found that...they all had far more in common than not! That they all shared common roots, and they all shared common doctrinal views at their cores. There is a core to Christianity that all orthodox (little "o") denominations share that makes it possible for someone from one denomination to pray, and fellowship and share insights with other denominations.

    The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig explains Christian beliefs like a spider web. At the core of the spider web you'll find those beliefs that are central to holding the whole thing together. God exists. Jesus was an historical person. Then a bit further out perhaps, Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus died and was raised from the dead. A little further from that the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and forgiveness of sin. And then perhaps a little further out, views on atonement, and views on baptism. And a little further from that, views on eschatology. Until you come to the edges of the spider web and get to things like "Do we need to tithe 10%?," "Can we play instruments in the church?," "Is it okay for pastors/priests to wear jeans and sneakers?"

    You're going to find consensus agreement on the core beliefs among orthodox Christians. There's a popular maxim in Latin when this subject comes up: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas which variously translates to "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity," or more loosely translated: "unity in necessary things; freedom in doubtful things; love in all things." As a Protestant who has strong disagreements about all manner of things with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even other Protestants I've learned so much and have grown so much stronger in my faith interacting with people in those other denominations. Some of my favorite Bible scholars and teachers belong to Christian traditions that appear from the outside to be vastly different from my own, but we all share those common core beliefs that make learning from them possible and fruitful.
    If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that Spiderman is really Jesus?

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    The emphasis in this forum is on friendly discussion of diverse faiths; polemical thought is sort of not friendly, yes?
    Ok, fair point. I should have paid more attention.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    But it's not completely off the mark, since it still says "Apologetics Lite" though, isn't it? I really don't know what is meant by the rest of the description, though.
    The emphasis in this forum is on friendly discussion of diverse faiths; polemical thought is sort of not friendly, yes?

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    To be fair, it really should be in Apologetics; General Theistics is meant to be for irenic, not polemical discussion.
    But it's not completely off the mark, since it still says "Apologetics Lite" though, isn't it? I really don't know what is meant by the rest of the description, though.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X