The Christian Theology Education Thread

[CityDave94]

55 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

All religions are the same - just interested in money.

and chipsticks

and rollerblades

DRINK!!!  DRINK!!!

 

....a nice cup of tea Father ?

[Richey Edwards]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

All religions are the same - just interested in money.

The queen is dead, boys

And it's so lonely on a limb

 

[Venti]

Dantalion sounds like a nice chap.

Dantalion (or Dantalian) is a powerful Great Duke of Hell, with thirty-six legions of demons under his command; he is the 71st of 72 spirits of Solomon. He teaches all arts and sciences, and also declares the secret counsel of anyone, given that he knows the thoughts of all people and can change them at his will. He can also cause love and show the similitude of any person, show the same by means of a vision, and let them be in any part of the world they will. He is depicted as a man with many appearances, which means the faces of all men and women. There are also many depictions in which he is said to hold a book in one of his hands:

[Granny Danger]

19 minutes ago, Venti said:

Dantalion sounds like a nice chap.

Dantalion (or Dantalian) is a powerful Great Duke of Hell, with thirty-six legions of demons under his command; he is the 71st of 72 spirits of Solomon. He teaches all arts and sciences, and also declares the secret counsel of anyone, given that he knows the thoughts of all people and can change them at his will. He can also cause love and show the similitude of any person, show the same by means of a vision, and let them be in any part of the world they will. He is depicted as a man with many appearances, which means the faces of all men and women. There are also many depictions in which he is said to hold a book in one of his hands:

I was at school with him.  I always thought he would turn out to be a wrong ‘un.

 

[jimbaxters]

30 minutes ago, Venti said:

Dantalion sounds like a nice chap.

Dantalion (or Dantalian) is a powerful Great Duke of Hell, with thirty-six legions of demons under his command; he is the 71st of 72 spirits of Solomon. He teaches all arts and sciences, and also declares the secret counsel of anyone, given that he knows the thoughts of all people and can change them at his will. He can also cause love and show the similitude of any person, show the same by means of a vision, and let them be in any part of the world they will. He is depicted as a man with many appearances, which means the faces of all men and women. There are also many depictions in which he is said to hold a book in one of his hands:

All for one...

[Venti]

In Revelation 9:10

John describes locusts with scorpion tails. Also they have human faces, lion's teeth & iron armour.

Should have got him as a developer on Witcher 3.

[milton75]

10 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I remember at school being told we should respect people’s religious beliefs.  No one ever explained why.  No one ever suggested that we should question people’s religious beliefs.

Hopefully schools teach more critical thinking these days.

I've asked this myself many times and still no-one, not even people of faith, has given me a coherent answer that stands up to scrutiny.

The most basic answer is, of course, a mix of the following:

1) that history tells us that a worrying percentage of any given population with react angrily and violently when told that something they believe in wrong. That's not exclusive to the religious; it's just that many people are weak-minded and reactionary, and frankly cannot take it.

2) that the less intelligent someone is the more likely they are to resort to violent or excessive outbursts in a confrontation. This is because they lack the faculties to retort with a suitably effective put-down.

3) while I'm not saying that religious people are less intelligent, it is, however, categorically measurable that the more developed and educated a society as a whole becomes, the less people in said society will identify as religious.

4) there are enough religious people around that some of them will fall into category 1) above. History again shows exactly what they tend to do when they get upset, and this continues in many parts of the world today.

It is, therefore, purely on a practical level, deemed wise not to disrespect someone's religion because you never know whether they might be a lunatic that will attack you. If they are prepared to believe in angels and demons and such like, punching someone on the nose for laughing at them seems a minor issue in comparison.

 

You'll often find today that people trot out the line "you don't have to respect someone's beliefs, but you have to respect their right to believe them", but even this is a woolly attempt to placate the faithful. If this mantra truly held true it would apply universally. Respecting someone's right to believe that fairies live at the bottom of their garden. Respecting someone's right to believe that Elvis is still alive. That they were anally probed by aliens... We don't respect these things because they are nonsense. The only reason religion is more respected is because the nonsense contained within its doctrines is believed by many. The plurality of it grants credence, not the content itself.
This issue of plurality is the simplest measure of why religion can be found wanting. A cult is merely a group of oddballs until there are enough of them that they're suddenly to be considered a respected religion. No-one knows what that magic number of believers is, but then that just makes it even easier for them to demand undeserved respect.

And, on the flipside, when a religion dies, we can see that once-truly held tenets and beliefs suddenly look silly and fanciful. Gods and monsters from ancient Greece are clearly and obviously folklore and superstition to modern eyes, but they were once sincerely believed in by those alive at the time,and today we are unwilling or unable to discuss or critique current faiths with the same rationality.

Edit to add - this sometimes applies even with existing faiths when they chop and change their doctrine to suit current mores. Look at the mess the Catholic church has gotten into regarding Limbo. Give it another few centuries and they'll likely make up another answer to that one.

Edited September 4 by milton75

[jimbaxters]

1 minute ago, milton75 said:

I've asked this myself many times and still no-one, not even people of faith, has given me a coherent answer that stands up to scrutiny.

The most basic answer is, of course, a mix of the following:

1) that history tells us that a worrying percentage of any given population with react angrily and violently when told that something they believe in wrong. That's not exclusive to the religious; it's just that many people are weak-minded and reactionary, and frankly cannot take it.

2) that the less intelligent someone is the more likely they are to resort to violent or excessive outbursts in a confrontation. This is because hey lack the faculties to retort with a suitably brutal put-down.

3) while we are not saying that religious people are less intelligent, it is, however, categorically measurable that the more developed and educated a society becomes, the less people in said society will identify as religious.

4) that there are enough religious people that some of them will fall into category 1 above. History again shows exactly what they tend to do, and this continues in many parts of the world today.

It is, therefore, purely on a practical level, deemed wise not to disrespect someone's religion because you never know whether they might be a lunatic that will attack you. If they are prepared to believe in angels and demons and such like, punching someone on the nose for laughing at them seems a minor issue in comparison.

 

You'll often find today that people trot out the line "you don't have to respect someone's beliefs, but you have to respect their right to believe them", but even this is a woolly attempt to placate the faithful. If this mantra truly held true it would apply universally. Respecting someone's right to believe that fairies live at the bottom of their garden. Respecting someone's right to believe that Elvis is still alive. That they were anally probed by aliens... We don't respect these things because they are nonsense. The only reason religion is more respected is because the nonsense contained within its doctrines is believed by many. The plurality of it grants credence, not the content itself.
This issue of plurality is the simplest measure of why religion can be found wanting. A cult is merely a group of oddballs until there are enough o them that they're suddenly to be respected. No-one knows what that magic number of believers is, but that makes it even easier for them to demand respect.
And on the flipside, when a religion dies, we can see that one-truly held tenets and beliefs suddenly look silly and fanciful. Gods and monsters from ancient Greece are clearly and obviously folklore and superstition to modern eyes, but we are unwilling or unable to discuss or critique current faiths with the same rationality.

Or, here's an idea, it's plain manners to be respectful of other people. But then that would not be in line with your four reasons which all point out your belief that everyone with faith could attack you if you disagree. 

Go to a church service and see that ALL that is preached there is love. Honestly.

[Rugster]

 

[milton75]

1 minute ago, jimbaxters said:

Or, here's an idea, it's plain manners to be respectful of other people. But then that would not be in line with your four reasons which all point out your belief that everyone with faith could attack you if you disagree. 

Go to a church service and see that ALL that is preached there is love. Honestly.

It's also commonly held that respect is earned. Belief in things that don't carry a burden of proof is not conducive to that. If it was you would respect the belief of people that think the earth is flat. Do you?

It's also considered good manners to respond when others converse with you, yet on page 24 of this thread I took the time to reply to a few of the questions you asked of the thread. I note you passed on by. That's fine, I'm happy if you reply or not, but don't lecture me on manners when you lack them.

[Richey Edwards]

19 minutes ago, Venti said:

In Revelation 9:10

John describes locusts with scorpion tails. Also they have human faces, lion's teeth & iron armour.

Should have got him as a developer on Witcher 3.

Whoever wrote that final chapter went to the Stephen King school of taking drugs while writing endings.

[CityDave94]

25 minutes ago, Venti said:

In Revelation 9:10

John describes locusts with scorpion tails. Also they have human faces, lion's teeth & iron armour.

Should have got him as a developer on Witcher 3.

Maybe he's describing an asian or oriental hornet, with a little slight bit of embelishment.

No in fact that describes these f***ers perfectly.

Nope!!

 ^^^^ ''Hi Guys''

Edited September 4 by CityDave94

[carpetmonster]

18 minutes ago, milton75 said:

 

Edit to add - this sometimes applies even with existing faiths when they chop and change their doctrine to suit current mores. Look at the mess the Catholic church has gotten into regarding Limbo. Give it another few centuries and they'll likely make up another answer to that one.

You'd have to think accepting some Eastern tradition and preaching the benefits of yoga would help folks be more flexible, and thus find it easier to get under. 

[jimbaxters]

8 minutes ago, milton75 said:

It's also commonly held that respect is earned. Belief in things that don't carry a burden of proof is not conducive to that. If it was you would respect the belief of people that think the earth is flat. Do you?

It's also considered good manners to respond when others converse with you, yet on page 24 of this thread I took the time to reply to a few of the questions you asked of the thread. I note you passed on by. That's fine, I'm happy if you reply or not, but don't lecture me on manners when you lack them.

I wasn't lecturing you on anything. I said it's manners to respect other people. Much like I respect those who believe the Earth is flat, I disagree with their belief but I still respect them and don't for one second think that I will be attacked by such a person if they knew I disagreed.

On the subject of respect, I am not learned enough to dissect every word of your post and reply to it. I guess I was being disrespectful in that I couldn't be bothered with it. I apologise.

[Granny Danger]

25 minutes ago, milton75 said:

I've asked this myself many times and still no-one, not even people of faith, has given me a coherent answer that stands up to scrutiny.

The most basic answer is, of course, a mix of the following:

1) that history tells us that a worrying percentage of any given population with react angrily and violently when told that something they believe in wrong. That's not exclusive to the religious; it's just that many people are weak-minded and reactionary, and frankly cannot take it.

2) that the less intelligent someone is the more likely they are to resort to violent or excessive outbursts in a confrontation. This is because they lack the faculties to retort with a suitably effective put-down.

3) while I'm not saying that religious people are less intelligent, it is, however, categorically measurable that the more developed and educated a society as a whole becomes, the less people in said society will identify as religious.

4) there are enough religious people around that some of them will fall into category 1) above. History again shows exactly what they tend to do when they get upset, and this continues in many parts of the world today.

It is, therefore, purely on a practical level, deemed wise not to disrespect someone's religion because you never know whether they might be a lunatic that will attack you. If they are prepared to believe in angels and demons and such like, punching someone on the nose for laughing at them seems a minor issue in comparison.

 

You'll often find today that people trot out the line "you don't have to respect someone's beliefs, but you have to respect their right to believe them", but even this is a woolly attempt to placate the faithful. If this mantra truly held true it would apply universally. Respecting someone's right to believe that fairies live at the bottom of their garden. Respecting someone's right to believe that Elvis is still alive. That they were anally probed by aliens... We don't respect these things because they are nonsense. The only reason religion is more respected is because the nonsense contained within its doctrines is believed by many. The plurality of it grants credence, not the content itself.
This issue of plurality is the simplest measure of why religion can be found wanting. A cult is merely a group of oddballs until there are enough of them that they're suddenly to be considered a respected religion. No-one knows what that magic number of believers is, but then that just makes it even easier for them to demand undeserved respect.

And, on the flipside, when a religion dies, we can see that once-truly held tenets and beliefs suddenly look silly and fanciful. Gods and monsters from ancient Greece are clearly and obviously folklore and superstition to modern eyes, but they were once sincerely believed in by those alive at the time,and today we are unwilling or unable to discuss or critique current faiths with the same rationality.

Edit to add - this sometimes applies even with existing faiths when they chop and change their doctrine to suit current mores. Look at the mess the Catholic church has gotten into regarding Limbo. Give it another few centuries and they'll likely make up another answer to that one.

I agree re the respect thing.  Ask a catholic if they respect Scientology or even Mormonism, both well established religions with huge followings.  Doubt you’ll see much genuine respect there.

 

[milton75]

6 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

I wasn't lecturing you on anything. I said it's manners to respect other people. Much like I respect those who believe the Earth is flat, I disagree with their belief but I still respect them and don't for one second think that I will be attacked by such a person if they knew I disagreed.

On the subject of respect, I am not learned enough to dissect every word of your post and reply to it. I guess I was being disrespectful in that I couldn't be bothered with it. I apologise.

Don't apologise when I'm being annoying.

It's nice that you respect the flat-earthers, but isn't your respect for them diminished at all by the fact that seemingly intelligent people believe something that is plainly not true?

[Cosmic Joe]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

I agree re the respect thing.  Ask a catholic if they respect Scientology or even Mormonism, both well established religions with huge followings.  Doubt you’ll see much genuine respect there.

 

I've got no problem with either.

But then, I'm the guy who walked out of mass because the priest was being a homophobic p***k.

I think he has since been de-frocked

[Soapy FFC]

21 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I agree re the respect thing.  Ask a catholic if they respect Scientology or even Mormonism, both well established religions with huge followings.  Doubt you’ll see much genuine respect there.

 

Both money making cults

[milton75]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I agree re the respect thing.  Ask a catholic if they respect Scientology or even Mormonism, both well established religions with huge followings.  Doubt you’ll see much genuine respect there.

 

This is how I feel about most religion.

Early Christianity steals/adopts some (but not as many as some people seem to think) pagan and pre-existing religious festivals and that's fine. I suppose in the case of the Jewish ones it makes sense, with Jesus being a reformer. But it's just accepted and not really worth focusing on as far as the Catholic church is concerned.

Then, with the King James bible, various other versions, such as the Geneva Bible informed the discussion, which was essentially by committee, along with the realities of politics at the time. You eventually get the New International Version. This is also fine with Presbyterians who see no issue with various tenets having changed over the centuries.

But, ask them how they feel about any emerging version of Christianity and they don't approve. There's no self-awareness at all.

On the subject of adjusting doctrine to suit modern mores though, I actually have more respect for those that don't. At least stone-age suicide bombers are prepared to stick to their convictions and in a sense that's admirable. Better that than some wishy-washy Vicar deciding it's okay for gays to be in the church, or for an intrinsically patriarchal and misogynist institution such as the Church of Scotland to accept female Ministers. That sort of kowtowing to current societal norms is nothing more than a transparent and hypocritical attempt to stem the flow of arses away from pews.

[milton75]

4 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

Both money making cults