The Christian Theology Education Thread

[carpetmonster]

8 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

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"

I’m actually all right on Guinness these days. It’s anything with a ton of hops - the big double hopped IPAs and whatnot - that make me reenact the Bhopal disaster of a Sunday morning 

[invergowrie arab]

3 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

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?

An outsider looking in might wonder why some football fans getting annoyed at VAR getting a decision right because they don't understand we reject the authority of VAR in the first place.

Biblical infallibility is a modern protestant phenomenon. 

[Boo Khaki]

Quote

Leviticus 11:12

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

 

 

How on earth can it be concluded with any certainty that this is a direct reference to shellfish?

It could just be a simple administrative cock-up, God was perfectly happy for us to eat crustaceans all along, and he really meant to expressly forbid us from eating seal, manatee, hippopotamus, seaweed, or even rice ffs.

Could the Vatican no tweet a list of approved foods, or at least confirm which are completely haram?

Edited February 22, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[Aim Here]

43 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

How on earth can it be concluded with any certainty that this is a direct reference to shellfish?

It could just be a simple administrative cock-up, God was perfectly happy for us to eat crustaceans all along, and he really meant to expressly forbid us from eating seal, manatee, hippopotamus, seaweed, or even rice ffs.

Could the Vatican no tweet a list of approved foods, or at least confirm which are completely haram?

Isn't that instruction clear enough? I mean shellfish are definitely water-borne, have no fins or scales, and so don't eat them. Likewise mackerel, or dogfish. Seals, manatees and hippopotami probably never came across the radar of the biblical authors; there might be argument as to whether they're land animals, but seals and manatees wouldn't be kosher either as land or sea creatures so it's moot for them. Hippopotami on the other hand, should be fine (ruminant with cloven hoof!). For the plants, that's probably clarified in the next verse as it seems to refer to 'things that move in the water'.

And if you've actually read that bit of the bible, you will find it pretty comprehensive in it's lists of rules. No need for the pope to weigh in any further. The kosher and non-kosher bird list is fairly extensive ('bat' shows up in one of them!) plus there's all sorts of commandments on what to wear, which of your relatives you can shag, what to sacrifice for what infraction, and exactly how to build a temple in a tent (and when they were done, how exactly the builders built that temple in that tent). It's almost as if, after that apple business with Adam and Eve, and after starting all over again with Noah, and after Moses comes down from the mountain and finds everyone in the throes of idolatry, God has finally gotten pissed off and said 'Okay, do I have to tell you morons *absolutely fucking everything*?' and lays down, step by step, in tedious, excruciating detail and in triplicate, every single rule that mankind has to follow from then on.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Aim Here

[Shotgun]

Could anyone take a stab at explaining the whole "Jesus died for your sins" bit to me? I've heard it all my life but nobody has been able to tell me what it actually means. First of all, this was almost 2,000 years before I was born so obviously, I hadn't done any sinning yet. (I'll admit I've done a fair bit since then but nowhere near as much as I'd have liked.)

Soooo...what how does him dying impact me? Did he die for Jeffrey Dahmer's sins? The Dalai Lama's? Donald Trump's? How does him dying change anything for any of us? If I don't sin, does that mean he died for nothing?

And that's before we get into the pesky technicality that he didn't die at all. If you come back to life after three days then you haven't died in any meaningful sense of the word. 

Enlighten me.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

1 hour ago, Shotgun said:

Could anyone take a stab at explaining the whole "Jesus died for your sins" bit to me? I've heard it all my life but nobody has been able to tell me what it actually means. First of all, this was almost 2,000 years before I was born so obviously, I hadn't done any sinning yet. (I'll admit I've done a fair bit since then but nowhere near as much as I'd have liked.)

Soooo...what how does him dying impact me? Did he die for Jeffrey Dahmer's sins? The Dalai Lama's? Donald Trump's? How does him dying change anything for any of us? If I don't sin, does that mean he died for nothing?

And that's before we get into the pesky technicality that he didn't die at all. If you come back to life after three days then you haven't died in any meaningful sense of the word. 

Enlighten me.

I've often thought that not dying would have been far more impressive.

[Guest]

I can see this thread getting locked alot or binned pretty quickly.

[jimbaxters]

3 minutes ago, Empty It said:

I can see this thread getting locked alot or binned pretty quickly.

That depends on the contributions. They've been mostly reasonable and sensible so far.

Edited February 22, 2023 by jimbaxters

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

That depends on the contributions. They've been mostly reasonable and sensible so far.

People don't like questions being asked of their religion even when it is sensible usually because they don't have a sensible answer.

[jimbaxters]

3 minutes ago, Empty It said:

People don't like questions being asked of their religion even when it is sensible usually because they don't have a sensible answer.

Disagree with that. It's when the questions are asked using deliberate provocation that chagrin occurs. Any Christian should be happy that others are asking questions even if we don't have all the answers.

[Cosmic Joe]

11 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

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?

Catholics build statues af many Saints, but do not worship them. Some pray to Our Lady to intercede, for example the Hail Mary. 

[hk blues]

11 hours ago, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

Why are protestants called Proddys and not Prottys?

Possibly for the same reason Americans say wader instead of water. 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

This has the makings of a great thread, if everyone keeps the heid!

[Salt n Vinegar]

3 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

This has the makings of a great thread, if everyone keeps the heid!

Since your post.... Tumbleweed

Fine example of 'commentators' curse'! 

The problem with threads like this is that it is very difficult to discuss the respective merits of the millions of different 'beliefs' without being seen to be critical of the individuals holding these beliefs.

If I was to try to seriously claim that Raith Rovers are by far the best football team in the world, with the possible exception of about 3 folk in Kirkcaldy, I'd expect folk to ridicule me for believing something so ridiculous and face repeated demands for evidence. If folk suggest that some aspects of some beliefs are... let's say questionable... they will face demands for sanctions for daring to criticise.

I think this thread will actually be boring because nobody will feel free to say what they really think. 

[TxRover]

9 hours ago, Shotgun said:

Could anyone take a stab at explaining the whole "Jesus died for your sins" bit to me? I've heard it all my life but nobody has been able to tell me what it actually means. First of all, this was almost 2,000 years before I was born so obviously, I hadn't done any sinning yet. (I'll admit I've done a fair bit since then but nowhere near as much as I'd have liked.)

Soooo...what how does him dying impact me? Did he die for Jeffrey Dahmer's sins? The Dalai Lama's? Donald Trump's? How does him dying change anything for any of us? If I don't sin, does that mean he died for nothing?

And that's before we get into the pesky technicality that he didn't die at all. If you come back to life after three days then you haven't died in any meaningful sense of the word. 

Enlighten me.

Original sin? Of course, from there the discussion gets bogged down.

25 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

If I was to try to seriously claim that Raith Rovers are by far the best football team in the world, with the possible exception of about 3 folk in Kirkcaldy, I'd expect folk to ridicule me for believing something so ridiculous and face repeated demands for evidence. If folk suggest that some aspects of some beliefs are... let's say questionable... they will face demands for sanctions for daring to criticise.

I think this thread will actually be boring because nobody will feel free to say what they really think. 

Glad to see you’ve been reading the Apocrypha (almost spelt apocrapha, which feels like iOS is trying to tell me something), and in particular the seldom read Book of Hutton

[jimbaxters]

55 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Since your post.... Tumbleweed

Fine example of 'commentators' curse'! 

The problem with threads like this is that it is very difficult to discuss the respective merits of the millions of different 'beliefs' without being seen to be critical of the individuals holding these beliefs.

If I was to try to seriously claim that Raith Rovers are by far the best football team in the world, with the possible exception of about 3 folk in Kirkcaldy, I'd expect folk to ridicule me for believing something so ridiculous and face repeated demands for evidence. If folk suggest that some aspects of some beliefs are... let's say questionable... they will face demands for sanctions for daring to criticise.

I think this thread will actually be boring because nobody will feel free to say what they really think. 

I don't see why as long as the content isn't deliberately snide and offensive. If a poster wants to respond in that way there is every other thread on the forum.

[tamthebam]

10 hours ago, Shotgun said:

Could anyone take a stab at explaining the whole "Jesus died for your sins" bit to me? I've heard it all my life but nobody has been able to tell me what it actually means. First of all, this was almost 2,000 years before I was born so obviously, I hadn't done any sinning yet. (I'll admit I've done a fair bit since then but nowhere near as much as I'd have liked.)

Soooo...what how does him dying impact me? Did he die for Jeffrey Dahmer's sins? The Dalai Lama's? Donald Trump's? How does him dying change anything for any of us? If I don't sin, does that mean he died for nothing?

And that's before we get into the pesky technicality that he didn't die at all. If you come back to life after three days then you haven't died in any meaningful sense of the word. 

Enlighten me.

I have heard a sort of theology whereby the Big J acts as a kind of defence agent in the celestial court of Judgement. 

I suspect the fiery place has all the good lawyers though. 

[coprolite]

17 hours 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.

Coveting asses is one. 

[TxRover]

33 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Coveting asses is one. 

Huge disappointment from the Kardashian crowd on that news…

[Hillonearth]

I've always found it distinctly worrying that anyone thinks they're getting the direct-from-the-tap version of the big message of Christianity from reading the bible, far less feel confident to pick and choose the bits they want to focus on.

None of the four canonical gospels in the new testament were written prior to 70ADish at the earliest, and parts of them might even date to the second century, which would strongly suggest them to be at best garbled word-of-mouth rather than anything based on eyewitness accounts.

Factor in the fact that what actually became Christianity was much more along the lines of St Paul's ideas....he freely admitted to never having met JC, but based his ideas on the big chap coming to him in a vision and telling him alone what he'd really meant the whole time, much of which was almost diametrically opposed to the more closely aligned to Judaism proto-Christianity being practiced by the people who'd actually known him.

Finally, you have to take into account 2000 years of mistranslation and tweaking to suit contemporary political and theological needs...an obvious example was the mistranslation of the word mekhasheph...."You shall not suffer a poisoner to live" is a more accurate translation than the "You shall not suffer a herbalist to live" of the middle ages, which was eventually changed yet again to "witch." at a time when folk remedies were being equated with witchcraft by those in power. Accurate translation of that one word would probably have saved a lot of old wifies being burnt at the stake.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Hillonearth