Understanding Christianity

[Geoffrey S]

Three sides of the same coin springs to mind.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For those among us who do not regularly spin off the Creeds and have them down by heart, wiki is fairly accurate here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Mind, I can't imagine how you'd fake the Creed.

As to the issue of the resurrection, I'm afraid the Dean of Exeter doesn't agree with you Nav. Jewish, and hence Christian resurrection is a bodily matter as well as spiritural one. Have a look at revelations again.

As to the Holy Trinity, to paraphase Boethius, "If I say; one sword, one brand, one blade, I am still only referring to one sword." I rather like that, even if it is unfortunately martial.

[Sigurd]

What about the Godhead actually being 3 seperate enteties? It too will fit into what is written in the Bible.
And it will actually make sense as to one being the father of the other.
Oh wait, the polytheistic problem

[Kralizec]

The way I had the Trinity explained to me was with reference to geography (courtesy of Sister Priscilla Paradis). The Atlantic Ocean is NOT the Pacific Ocean, yet they ARE the same body of water, no?

Somebody once explained it to me using a three leafed clover as an analogy. I like this one better, though.

[Papewaio]

What about the Godhead actually being 3 seperate enteties? It too will fit into what is written in the Bible.
And it will actually make sense as to one being the father of the other.
Oh wait, the polytheistic problem

Just embrace cloning and you resolve 2 out of 3 of the database join errors.

[MilesGregarius]

But I still believe in Jesus' divinity even though I don't agree with all his teachings.

Huh?

What I can never get about certain branches of Christianity is their need to proclaim their personal relationship with Jesus and that He is their Lord and Savior, but that they prefer the Old Testament's fire and brimstone or Paul's ego-stroking proclamations of Christians' specialness.

To me, the only relevant part of the Bible to one who sees Jesus as the Messiah are the Gospels. If Jesus is the Messiah, how can His teachings be subordinate to those of the Old Testament writers or to those of the Epistles? If there is conflict or contradiction between the them, how can Jesus' own words not take precedence?

[Ironside]

What about the Godhead actually being 3 seperate enteties? It too will fit into what is written in the Bible.
And it will actually make sense as to one being the father of the other.
Oh wait, the polytheistic problem

The Bible doesn't contradict Arius either from what I've understand, that's why the church coined the term trinity in the first place. And the nature of the trinity was/is also heavily debated as the filioque clause shows.

But if you really want a theological mess on your hands then the nature of the divinity of Jesus is fun to study and it's almost as important as what kind of bread you should eat in the Eucharist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Huh?

What I can never get about certain branches of Christianity is their need to proclaim their personal relationship with Jesus and that He is their Lord and Savior, but that they prefer the Old Testament's fire and brimstone or Paul's ego-stroking proclamations of Christians' specialness.

To me, the only relevant part of the Bible to one who sees Jesus as the Messiah are the Gospels. If Jesus is the Messiah, how can His teachings be subordinate to those of the Old Testament writers or to those of the Epistles? If there is conflict or contradiction between the them, how can Jesus' own words not take precedence?

You can't, the Gospels come up trumps.

I recently worked out what bothers me about Evangelical Christians, the whole focus of Jesus tends to ignore the Almighty and hence there's far too much focus on Jesus' love.

What's the problem with that you ask?

Well, it allows you to beat up on hummanity without reservation, we're all wretched, the only reason God saves us is because he loves us, we don't deserve it etc... What I realised is that God is not only Loving, he is Just, so there must be something in hummanity worthy of redemption or at least the chance of it.

Ergo, we don't completely suck, just mostly.

[Navaros]

What I can never get about certain branches of Christianity is their need to proclaim their personal relationship with Jesus and that He is their Lord and Savior, but that they prefer the Old Testament's fire and brimstone or Paul's ego-stroking proclamations of Christians' specialness.

To me, the only relevant part of the Bible to one who sees Jesus as the Messiah are the Gospels. If Jesus is the Messiah, how can His teachings be subordinate to those of the Old Testament writers or to those of the Epistles? If there is conflict or contradiction between the them, how can Jesus' own words not take precedence?

The New Testament doesn't make a crystal clear statement about the Old Testament being invalid. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law (meaning, the Old Testament). Yet at the same time, he also contradicted a whole whackload of what the Old Testament said. Jesus also made references to much of the content of the Old Testament being accurate.

His teachings should logically be subordinate to the Old Testament because the teachings there were given by God the Father, who Jesus prayed to and was subordinate to during his time on Earth. Besides that, God is supposed to be eternal and unchanging, and Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible, do not bother to explain what caused God to "change his mind" about all these things.

Then there is Paul and the Apostles who in the New Testament, affirmed the validity of the Old Testament's teachings in addition to Jesus and claimed that both are to be practiced together, even though they can't be totally reconciled with each other.

I have to come to realize that there is no infalliable way for a human being to interpret all of these and similar things, and that is why there are so many different labels of Christianity and interpretations of what it means to be Christian.

The root cause of all these problems is that a book is an inadequate format to contain all these things. The only format that would actually work would be an interactive format, with God and/or Jesus directly answering every specific question that is ever put to them, live on demand, to every person who ever asks them something.

[Tribesman]

OK enough of that , stop it , bring back the other Navaros .

[Geoffrey S]

The root cause of all these problems is that a book is an inadequate format to contain all these things. The only format that would actually work would be an interactive format, with God and/or Jesus directly answering every specific question that is ever put to them, live on demand, to every person who ever asks them something.

Sounds like we need a message board with the Bible as FAQ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The New Testament doesn't make a crystal clear statement about the Old Testament being invalid. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law (meaning, the Old Testament). Yet at the same time, he also contradicted a whole whackload of what the Old Testament said. Jesus also made references to much of the content of the Old Testament being accurate.

His teachings should logically be subordinate to the Old Testament because the teachings there were given by God the Father, who Jesus prayed to and was subordinate to during his time on Earth. Besides that, God is supposed to be eternal and unchanging, and Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible, do not bother to explain what caused God to "change his mind" about all these things.

Then there is Paul and the Apostles who in the New Testament, affirmed the validity of the Old Testament's teachings in addition to Jesus and claimed that both are to be practiced together, even though they can't be totally reconciled with each other.

What about this: The Old Testemant was transmitted through human prophets, while the Gospels are the words of the Christ, the manifestation of God on Earth. So logically God came down himself to iron out the kinks and that is why the Gospels are the ultimate authoriety.

[KukriKhan]

What about this: The Old Testemant was transmitted through human prophets, while the Gospels are the words of the Christ, the manifestation of God on Earth. So logically God came down himself to iron out the kinks and that is why the Gospels are the ultimate authoriety.

That's a tempting tack, but wouldn't it only work if the Nazarene (or his dad) had authored his own book/gospel? In the end, the gospels are the accounts of men, about the christ, the same as the pentateuch is/are the accounts of men, about god, the father.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a tempting tack, but wouldn't it only work if the Nazarene (or his dad) had authored his own book/gospel? In the end, the gospels are the accounts of men, about the christ, the same as the pentateuch is/are the accounts of men, about god, the father.

I don't understand why people need to rationalize the irrational.

Logically that is most likely. However, if there is a God and he just does whatever the hell he wants, is it that much of a stretch to think that he inspired these guys with the Holy Spirit to write the books? Wouldn't that be the new logic?

Would it be logical to question the legitimacy of God's actions if you believed him to be real?

I don't think so, but that's just me.

Jesus was either just man, just God, or both. If you believe that Jesus was sent by God, ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God to judge the living and the dead, you kind of threw out secular logic long ago, no? There is nothing wrong with that. I've never been a fan of secular logic even though I try to use it as often as possible.

[KukriKhan]

And we do have Exodus 24:12

The Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.’

So I guess we have at least one instance where an almighty asserts to have written something (the ten commandments) with his own hand.

You make fine points, TuffStuff, and I disagree with none of that. Religions seem to require that I stop using these things I regard as assets in all other aspects (logic, free will, skepticism...) , because they are hinderances to getting closer to god.

I don't know why I am supposed to get closer than I am, while I'm living. Or why these seeming instincts I have - presumeably gifts from god - are supposed to get thrown away, or at least suspended?

[ICantSpellDawg]

And we do have Exodus 24:12


So I guess we have at least one instance where an almighty asserts to have written something (the ten commandments) with his own hand.

You make fine points, TuffStuff, and I disagree with none of that. Religions seem to require that I stop using these things I regard as assets in all other aspects (logic, free will, skepticism...) , because they are hinderances to getting closer to god.

I don't know why I am supposed to get closer than I am, while I'm living. Or why these seeming instincts I have - presumeably gifts from god - are supposed to get thrown away, or at least suspended?

Sometimes it seems that people fear being judged by Dworkian after death rather than God.
"You didn't use enough logic or reason in life" he would say.
"You really wasted your infinitesimal existence on faith"

Have faith and pursue goodness. Use whatever tools that the earth provides, but if those tools get in the way of truth, avoid them.

We do not want a thing because we reason; we find reasons for a thing because we want it. Mind invents logic for the whims of the will.

I think about that every time I put too much stock into what I understand about the world from a logical perspective. Then I think about what I was raised to believe. I'm much more worried about being judged by mom and God.

[Big_John]

I think about that every time I put too much stock into what I understand about the world from a logical perspective. Then I think about what I was raised to believe. I'm much more worried about being judged by mom and God.

that hegel quote is certainly cute, but it lacks much utility. you can't reject the rationality that ultimately underlies our world, our 'wants', unless you're a schizophrenic. whether we can tease out the logic behind our wants (though, increasingly, we can), is irrelevant to our existence in a physical world.

[ICantSpellDawg]

that hegel quote is certainly cute, but it lacks much utility. you can't reject the rationality that ultimately underlies our world, our 'wants', unless you're a schizophrenic. whether we can tease out the logic behind our wants (though, increasingly, we can), is irrelevant to our existence in a physical world.

That quote means to me that logic serves our interests, rather than the other way around. It is based on what WE know or believe to be true.

You may believe that there is some superlative logical understanding that everyone has, but I don't believe it. It is a way of showing ourselves a way to get what we want. Reality is relative as all of us frequently point out on this forum.

[KukriKhan]

That's almost buddhist there, TuffStuff:

Cease desire : attain enlightenment

Nice.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's almost buddhist there, TuffStuff:

Cease desire : attain enlightenment

Nice.

yep. Find Jesus. Follow Buddha.

[Big_John]

That quote means to me that logic serves our interests, rather than the other way around. It is based on what WE know or believe to be true.

that's a superficial analysis. certainly we can create tertiary rationales that serve to help us acquire our desires. but there is a logic that motivates those desires in the first place. just as there is a logic that motivates a lion's desires, or an amoeba's, or a daffodil's.

You may believe that there is some superlative logical understanding that everyone has, but I don't believe it. It is a way of showing ourselves a way to get what we want. Reality is relative as all of us frequently point out on this forum.

simply, nonsense.

certainly there is a subjective aspect to 'reality' since we are phenomenal beings. but the probability that a consensual, objective reality exists must be nearly 100%, even if we can't access it without perception getting in the way. it's hardly important that you concede that point, the very fact that we are interacting illustrates it.

why would you even want to assume we live in a psychedelic, fantasy world? yellow submarine sucked.

[ICantSpellDawg]

that's a superficial analysis. certainly we can create tertiary rationales that serve to help us acquire our desires. but there is a logic that motivates those desires in the first place. just as there is a logic that motivates a lion's desires, or an amoeba's, or a daffodil's.

simply, nonsense.

certainly there is a subjective aspect to 'reality' since we are phenomenal beings. but the probability that a consensual, objective reality exists must be nearly 100%, even if we can't access it without perception getting in the way. it's hardly important that you concede that point, the very fact that we are interacting illustrates it.

why would you even want to assume we live in a psychedelic, fantasy world? yellow submarine sucked.

All of my analyses are superficial. Commenting on them is redundant.

I didn't say that we lived in a yellow submarine fantasy world.

Lions attack gazelles, gazelles probably think the lions foolish. Gazelles are probably saying to themselves "with all this grass to eat, why do the lions need to eat me? It's sooo illogical"

You may say that it is the "circle of life". Where is the logic in that?

Would you hold the same standard to homicide? "species arn't supposed to hunt their own - it isn't logical"

What would you base that on? We are a species and we do. We are the "top of the food chain" - some hunt people, others are hunted. We have gone to war with one another since history began writing itself. In this sense it is logical. If lions stopped hunting gazzelles, the gazzelle population would probably skyrocket. Maybe even from 6 billion to 6.6 billion in just 7 years...

Religion, by many accounts, contributes to charity and happiness. Lower suicide rates, higher donation rates. Maybe the logic is in the endgame.

Who knows. We don't really know why we do what we do. We come up with theories, but they just ask 2 new questions and barely answer the first. Rationalization is fun and it molds "reality" for us if we'd like it to.

[Big_John]

All of my analyses are superficial. Commenting on them is redundant.

increasingly..

Would you hold the same standard to homicide? "species arn't supposed to hunt their own - it isn't logical"

What would you base that on? We are a species and we do. We are the "top of the food chain" - some hunt people, others are hunted. We have gone to war with one another since history began writing itself. In this sense it is logical.

of course homicide serves a logical purpose. it wouldn't be so common otherwise. in broad terms, it serves to eliminate competition.

Religion, by many accounts, contributes to charity and happiness. Lower suicide rates, higher donation rates.

i've pointed that out many times before. btw, i'm happy to see you putting murder and religion in the same box. ;)

Maybe the logic is in the endgame.

Who knows. Rationalization is fun and it molds "reality" for us if we'd like it to.

only to a degree. but next time you sprout tentacles and walk on the surface of the sun, let me know so i can revise my understanding of reality's boundaries.

[ICantSpellDawg]

increasingly..
of course homicide serves a logical purpose. it wouldn't be so common otherwise. in broad terms, it serves to eliminate competition.
i've pointed that out many times before. btw, i'm happy to see you putting murder and religion in the same box. ;)
only to a degree. but next time you sprout tentacles and walk on the surface of the sun, let me know so i can revise my understanding of reality's boundaries.

So destroying competition through murder is logical? I wonder what else that undermines life we can agree on.

[Big_John]

So destroying competition through murder is logical?

historically speaking, yes. in societies with rules against murder, not as much. but we're very old animals. old habits are hard to break.

[ICantSpellDawg]

historically speaking, yes. in societies with rules against murder, not as much. but we're very old animals. old habits are hard to break.

Homicide wouldn't be murder without those rules.

Why do we need to break those habits?
You mean the weak need to break those habits in those who would benefit from homicide?

[Big_John]

Homicide wouldn't be murder without those rules.

fair enough. i was mainly talking about individual homicide, both inside and outside of society.

Why do we need to break those habits?

so society does kill or ostracize us.

You mean the weak need to break those habits in those who would benefit from homicide?

game theory. every member's genes benefits from larger, more complex societies. notice how europeans populate north america these days.

[ICantSpellDawg]

hehe. I'm just killing time. There are plenty of logical reasons by numerous standards for Christianity. I'm going home for the weekend and my nature is to attack and tear apart, more so when I am leaving a week of work.

[Big_John]

there are logical reasons to have a 'faith' (happiness, etc), though i'm not aware of faith-specific reasonings.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In response to the original post I have said that prayer, more than once IIRC, when I went to an Evangelical church, not sure exactly what type, with a friend of mine when I was younger. Although I used to go more regularly to Church of Scotland services I genuinely tried to be sincere in the prayer, although I'm not sure if I was. I seem to be doing a reverse of the standard and getting more religious as I get older...

As for my Evangelical friend he's currently trying to prove the existence of dragons, since apparently they are referred to in the bible. He's also trying to show these and maybe other dinosaurs existed within the bibles timeframe, somthing to do with red blood cells which should have disappeared or something like that dont' ask me to get into the science.

EDIT: Apologisations for the lack of grammage in the above posting...