The Christian Theology Education Thread

[Hedgecutter]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

 

"They’ll frequently refer to the book of Leviticus, claiming it says that “homosexuality” an abomination (a flawed talking point as we’ll discuss later)—and ignore the surrounding verses commanding that disrespectful teens and those having extramarital sex be stoned to death—along with hundreds of requirements and punishments, most of which they declare irrelevant to their present lives"

My favourite one of the others (courtesy of Jim Jefferies) is that shellfish is banned. Somewhat problematic for those partial to a prawn cocktail on Christmas Day, but who cares when you're partial to some scampi?

Leviticus 11:12

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

5 hours ago, coprolite said:

In which @CarrbridgeSaintee explains what we don't understand.

The basic proposition from @Salt n Vinegar and myself is that there's so much contradictory stuff in the Bible that Christians can pick and choose what bits they like.  This is "not understanding Christian Theology" 

I would like to understand. 

Where would you like to start CS? The usual starting place would be the Council if Nicea i guess, although maybe some background from the Alexandrian Gnostic controversies could be interesting? 

Only just noticed this now

@Salt n Vinegar’s claim, that sprung me into action, was the following:

“Christians pay no attention to the shellfish stuff, the mixed fibres stuff, or the killing witches stuff but, oddly, the obsession with marriage, sex and the boaby remains”

Picking and choosing aside, the above is a misrepresentation of what Christians believe in the first place.

To answer your question about theology, I’d start by going through the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Practise remembering the answers, giving yourself a p***k with a pin every time you get one wrong.  You’ll get there soon enough.

For SnV, I’d advise he starts with the differences between Old Testament and New Testament Law.

[Florentine_Pogen]

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

1 hour ago, Aim Here said:

Sortof. Christianity predates the bible, and various Christians have various ideas as to where their authority comes from. The major Christian sects go with the notion of apostolic authority and tradition - all those bishops and popes and patriarchs have been appointed by bishops who were appointed by people who go all the way back to Jesus and his disciples, and this has as much authority as the bible. There's a ton of other extra-biblical doctrines that go into what Christianity is, and most Christians belong to factions that don't even claim the bible is necessarily wholly true. It's merely 'divinely inspired' via (possibly) fallible human beings. It's a lot more complicated than 'the bible says X therefore that's Christian Theology'. Muslims and Mormons DO base their theology on a book that's written by God, but not so for Christians.

(And between the various Judeo-Christian canons, and the variations in the manuscript record, particularly for the New Testament, and then the errors in translation from the  original languages, 'what the bible says' is a huge can of worms in itself).

A very good post.

The way I see it, is that Christians of all shades have their opinions on what’s correct, based on interpretations of history, takes on scripture, what they believe the bible to actually be and all sorts of other factors.

What I object to is when people blindly put the differences down to ‘picking and choosing’.. although granted it can happen.

Edited February 21, 2023 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[Cosmic Joe]

2 hours ago, Aim Here said:

Sortof. Christianity predates the bible

Do you mean it predates the New Testament? 

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Do you mean it predates the New Testament? 

Yes. Well caught!

[coprolite]

25 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Only just noticed this now

@Salt n Vinegar’s claim, that sprung me into action, was the following:

“Christians pay no attention to the shellfish stuff, the mixed fibres stuff, or the killing witches stuff but, oddly, the obsession with marriage, sex and the boaby remains”

Picking and choosing aside, the above is a misrepresentation of what Christians believe in the first place.

To answer your question about theology, I’d start by going through the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Practise remembering the answers, giving yourself a p***k with a pin every time you get one wrong.  You’ll get there soon enough.

For SnV, I’d advise he starts with the differences between Old Testament and New Testament Law.

That was actually very interesting. 

So from your theological point of view, a Christian who subscribes to that document (lets call it the WC, for the sake of toilet humour) should be objecting to, for example, Gay marriage because the WC says that's what Christians should do, not because of any old testament laws, which are now repealed (except the big 10)?

But the bits of Leviticus that are often quoted aren't strictly "the law", they're just advisory. As it's these bits that have the shellfish rules and the "thou shalt not lay with another man" bits, it's wrong to say that Christians pick and choose because these don't have the authority that the WC does?

If that's right, although partial, i get the argument. 

But what Christians in the real world believe and how they justify that with respect to the bible is very unlikely to be theologically pure. For most it's nothing but dogma and support for prejudice. 

Back to the angels dancing on pins, what is the alleged provenance of the WC? Is this supposed to be the will of God somehow revealed through the aposotles and their successors through whatever processs or is it acknowledged to be "man made"? 

It's not feeling very free of internal contradiction on first read, what with being clear that the big 10 are pretty much the only ultimate authority, then laying down the law itself, while saying that the co conscience shouldn't be bound by man made law. 

To be honest it feels like it's an extension to the pick and choose menu. 

 

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

56 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Only just noticed this now

@Salt n Vinegar’s claim, that sprung me into action, was the following:

“Christians pay no attention to the shellfish stuff, the mixed fibres stuff, or the killing witches stuff but, oddly, the obsession with marriage, sex and the boaby remains”

Picking and choosing aside, the above is a misrepresentation of what Christians believe in the first place.

To answer your question about theology, I’d start by going through the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Practise remembering the answers, giving yourself a p***k with a pin every time you get one wrong.  You’ll get there soon enough.

For SnV, I’d advise he starts with the differences between Old Testament and New Testament Law.

Not really interested in the differences the between OT and NT law TBH, (because I consider all of them to be man made, not god (or "God") made or divinely inspired) or between the Gospels or between the countless schisms and sects. When Christianity can agree on what it thinks and what a God wants, it might be a conversation worth having. Neither am I interested in the comparative merits of Scientology and Mormonism. All white noise to me. 

The Anglican Communion appears to be in a dispute at the moment over marriage blessings (looks as if the ArchbofC's cloak is on a shoogly hook) and here in Scotland Forbes doesn't even approve of the marriages, let alone blessing them. All perfectly understandable disagreements if you realise that its simply an argument between humans and that the supernatural plays no role.  Humans disagreeing over the validity of their respective claims to power and influence are hardly new. 

My interest in the whole Forbes/religion issue relates only to how her beliefs might affect policy. As she herself has said, if she had been in Parliament at the time of the equal marriage legislation she would have opposed it. Logically it is no stretch at all to conclude that while she would not seek to remove these rights, she certainly doesn't believe that they should have heen granted these rights in the first place. That's enough of a red flag for me. 

I'll leave The Christian Theology Education to those interested in discussing it. Discussions on astrology, psychics and creationism may also be available somewhere. 

I'm also slightly amused that a thread on Theology has been created in the "General Nonsense" section. Couldn't have put it better myself ,. 

Now off to do some work on developing my Gaelic skills. See? That's one interest I can happily confess that I share with Forbes! I'm in a minority too... 

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

That was actually very interesting. 

So from your theological point of view, a Christian who subscribes to that document (lets call it the WC, for the sake of toilet humour) should be objecting to, for example, Gay marriage because the WC says that's what Christians should do, not because of any old testament laws, which are now repealed (except the big 10)?

But the bits of Leviticus that are often quoted aren't strictly "the law", they're just advisory. As it's these bits that have the shellfish rules and the "thou shalt not lay with another man" bits, it's wrong to say that Christians pick and choose because these don't have the authority that the WC does?

If that's right, although partial, i get the argument. 

But what Christians in the real world believe and how they justify that with respect to the bible is very unlikely to be theologically pure. For most it's nothing but dogma and support for prejudice. 

Back to the angels dancing on pins, what is the alleged provenance of the WC? Is this supposed to be the will of God somehow revealed through the aposotles and their successors through whatever processs or is it acknowledged to be "man made"? 

It's not feeling very free of internal contradiction on first read, what with being clear that the big 10 are pretty much the only ultimate authority, then laying down the law itself, while saying that the co conscience shouldn't be bound by man made law. 

To be honest it feels like it's an extension to the pick and choose menu. 

Interesting question re: gay marriage.

The Westminster Confession tells us what marriage is, which is between one man and one woman.  I don't see the Confession as sacrosanct though, and actually see it as fallible.  I agree with it on this issue though, and believe it's creators to have conducted their research correctly.

I'm comfortable with society allowing gay marriages to take place though.  I don't have the right to force my religion on anyone else.  However, in my heart, the redefinition has not taken place.

I don't really see the Confession as having authority, but see it more as a handy document with succinct answers to important questions.  Other Presbyterians may think differently.

I agree to an extent about dogma and prejudice.  Dogmatism and prejudice absolutely exist within Christian circles, as does narrow-mindedness and bigotry, but isn't at the core of Christianity.

There are many Christians that often set a bad example, and I'm sure I can be one of them at times.  We are all sinners after all, and these days I try my best to identify my wrongdoings and correct them going forward, as well as pray for forgiveness.

The Confession is absolutely man-made.

I disagree about the big ten being 'pretty much the only ultimate authority'.

[TxRover]

30 minutes ago, coprolite said:

…the big 10 are pretty much the only ultimate authority…

Just to toss the cat among the pigeons, can you specify which big 10, as the meaning and wording varies depending upon the source material.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

52 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Not really interested in the differences the between OT and NT law TBH, (because I consider all of them to be man made, not god (or "God") made or divinely inspired) or between the Gospels or between the countless schisms and sects. When Christianity can agree on what it thinks and what a God wants, it might be a conversation worth having. Neither am I interested in the comparative merits of Scientology and Mormonism. All white noise to me. 

The Anglican Communion appears to be in a dispute at the moment over marriage blessings (looks as if the ArchbofC's cloak is on a shoogly hook) and here in Scotland Forbes doesn't even approve of the marriages, let alone blessing them. All perfectly understandable disagreements if you realise that its simply an argument between humans and that the supernatural plays no role.  Humans disagreeing over the validity of their respective claims to power and influence are hardly new. 

My interest in the whole Forbes/religion issue relates only to how her beliefs might affect policy. As she herself has said, if she had been in Parliament at the time of the equal marriage legislation she would have opposed it. Logically it is no stretch at all to conclude that while she would not seek to remove these rights, she certainly doesn't believe that they should have heen granted these rights in the first place. That's enough of a red flag for me. 

I'll leave The Christian Theology Education to those interested in discussing it. Discussions on astrology, psychics and creationism may also be available somewhere. 

I'm also slightly amused that a thread on Theology has been created in the "General Nonsense" section. Couldn't have put it better myself ,. 

Now off to do some work on developing my Gaelic skills. See? That's one interest I can happily confess that I share with Forbes! I'm in a minority too... 

 

Just thought that knowing the differences between OT and NT law would help you avoid further errors in future re: shellfish, mixed fibres etc.

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[Mark Connolly]

When I was a kid, we were always told that Jesus (not you @johnnydun, the real one) had said the most important thing was to love the Lord God with all your heart, and to love your neighbour as yourself.

I presume they just missed out the bit about "unless they are gay or foreign"

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

4 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

When I was a kid, we were always told that Jesus (not you @johnnydun, the real one) had said the most important thing was to love the Lord God with all your heart, and to love your neighbour as yourself.

I presume they just missed out the bit about "unless they are gay or foreign"

Loving the Lord God doesn’t mean ignoring his will.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

If this can be a random religious questions thread -

 

Doesn't the bible say churches aren't needed but then they built squillions of them?

 

Doesn't the bible say something about no idolatry but then the Catholics build statues of Mary and worship her?

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

Why are protestants called Proddys and not Prottys?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Florentine_Pogen]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

Just to toss the cat among the pigeons, can you specify which big 10, as the meaning and wording varies depending upon the source material.

 

[RH33]

3 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

"They’ll frequently refer to the book of Leviticus, claiming it says that “homosexuality” an abomination (a flawed talking point as we’ll discuss later)—and ignore the surrounding verses commanding that disrespectful teens and those having extramarital sex be stoned to death—along with hundreds of requirements and punishments, most of which they declare irrelevant to their present lives"

My favourite one of the others (courtesy of Jim Jefferies) is that shellfish is banned. Somewhat problematic for those partial to a prawn cocktail on Christmas Day, but who cares when you're partial to some scampi?

 

 

Proper scampi is made from monkfish tails so the Christians are fine.....

[Deanburn Dave]

7 minutes ago, RH33 said:

Proper scampi is made from monkfish tails so the Christians are fine.....

Real Scampi is made from Langoustines.   Monkfish can stay in the sea.

[RH33]

9 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said:

Real Scampi is made from Langoustines.   Monkfish can stay in the sea.

I always thought scampi when talking of shellfish was langostine and depending on regional naming variations but the food was made from monkfish. 

[tamthebam]

I always thought the bit about shellfish was just common sense mixed in with religion.

In the hot Bible lands c800BC or whenever

"Leviticus, wee Joseph has got a bad case of the Babylonian Belly"

"What didst thy Joseph eat last night?"

"Some dodgy oysters"

"Verily The Lord hath punished him and it shall go in the teachings. And the bugger should have known not to eat shellfish out of season"

Similarly anyone who has eaten off bacon or pork will know where the prohibition on eating pigs flesh came from 

If it was today the Book of Tam shall read "If thou drinkest to an excess the produce of the Irish known as ye Guinness and ye follow this with ye kebab then the wrath of The Lord shall be verily visited on thy guts"