The Christian Theology Education Thread

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Vietnam91 said:

Yet an old puppet-master living in the sky possessing/directing people is valid? 300 years on the big fella decided the Jews goosed it and he was switching sides.

The council of Nicea is the ultimate zinger, a man made construct to engineer plausibility to another made made construct. It illustrates perfectly how humans are motivated by self interest. Which still exists today in every society and level within it.

My argument doesn't involve the supernatural.

You're not arguing with the point I'm making.

I don't believe in God.

My point is that your time spent insisting that the fact that humans compiled the Bible makes it invalid is time wasted.

The Christian argument is really simple. God inspired the writing of the Bible and then inspired its compilation.

Highlighting that the people who compiled it had interests and biases of their own is a complete irrelevance.

[carpetmonster]

2 hours ago, milton75 said:

 

 

Respecting someone's right to believe that Elvis is still alive. That they were anally probed by aliens... 

Depending on how long US citizenship applications are taking as of November, I’ll be a resident alien for the next 12-18 months if anyone fancies. 

[Vietnam91]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

You're not arguing with the point I'm making.

I don't believe in God.

My point is that your time spent insisting that the fact that humans compiled the Bible makes it invalid is time wasted.

The Christian argument is really simple. God inspired the writing of the Bible and then inspired its compilation.

Highlighting that the people who compiled it had interests and biases of their own is a complete irrelevance.

The same christians then must believe God decided not to intervene with subsequent representatives on Earth as countless scientists and philosophers were excommunicated, put under house arrest or executed for stuff that ended up being indisputable.

They will also have to come to terms with how the flawless and omnipotent being didn't inspire continuity between the four gospels where there's countless contradictions.

It's an irrelevance to someone who is a stout believer and not willing to do some simple research yes, I'll give you that.

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Vietnam91 said:

The same christians then must believe God decided not to intervene with subsequent representatives on Earth as countless scientists and philosophers were excommunicated, put under house arrest or executed for stuff that ended up being indisputable.

They will also have to come to terms with how the flawless and omnipotent being didn't inspire continuity between the four gospels where there's countless contradictions.

It's an irrelevance to someone who is a stout believer and not willing to do some simple research yes, I'll give you that.

If you say to your average believer "The Bible was omposed by humans with biases". They will say "I know".

You're not saying anything here that advances the discussion or convinces anyone. Believers know this stuff. They just view it differently to you.

You frame it as believers not being willing to do research, but they view you as someone with your mind closed off from the truth. Neither view lands with the other side, and neither point being made helps anyone.

Anyway, you've now significantly shifted the goalposts here. Your original post said

"If the words are divine, they don't need an editor" (my emphasis). My point is that that statement is a poor and irrelevant argument. And it is.

[Wee-Bey]

The old gods are the best anyway.

[Venti]

13 minutes ago, Cheese said:

The old gods are the best anyway.

 

[Vietnam91]

19 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

If you say to your average believer "The Bible was omposed by humans with biases". They will say "I know".

You're not saying anything here that advances the discussion or convinces anyone. Believers know this stuff. They just view it differently to you.

You frame it as believers not being willing to do research, but they view you as someone with your mind closed off from the truth. Neither view lands with the other side, and neither point being made helps anyone.

Anyway, you've now significantly shifted the goalposts here. Your original post said

"If the words are divine, they don't need an editor" (my emphasis). My point is that that statement is a poor and irrelevant argument. And it is.

I've met two believers that are aware of the council of Nicea so to suggest they know anything of the early church beyond the book of Revelation. So your first premise I think is also poor. Most Christians don't look past the book or what their pastor/priest/minister tells them. Your premise is founded that the vast majority have grounded themselves which isn't the case. 99% will reply "how dare you" if evangelical to a "doubt it" for passive Church of Scotland goers.

Even a staunch believer can't deny I've not looked into it more than most. I just don't buy it based upon what I've discovered.

But how are you advancing the discussion by telling a contributor their point is irrelevant and poor?

As a non believer yourself I've yet to see any points you have made that distinguishes or raises the bar of the discussion, maybe you can point to them.

Your goalpost thing is pettifogging, divine words were left out by God's design after inspiring them. I guess he got a do-over.

You just arguing for the sake of it or you an ENTP like me?

[milton75]

46 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

You're not arguing with the point I'm making.

I don't believe in God.

My point is that your time spent insisting that the fact that humans compiled the Bible makes it invalid is time wasted.

The Christian argument is really simple. God inspired the writing of the Bible and then inspired its compilation.

Highlighting that the people who compiled it had interests and biases of their own is a complete irrelevance.

This perspective would have more credibility if God inspiring the writing, and it then being transcribed, accurately or otherwise, actually happened within the context of the Earth's timeline that applied within the religion.

The fact that it didn't, and we now know that God was sitting on his hands for rather longer than the 10k max years does massively undermine the entire conceit, as the understood to-ing and fro-ing of humanity's successes and failures in terms of his desired morality goes right out the window. To say nothing if the knowledge of other religions elsewhere around the globe over the millennia.

And the thankfully few people that believe in Young Earch Creationism really are just morons.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

I've met two believers that are aware of the council of Nicea so to suggest they know anything of the early church beyond the book of Revelation. So your first premise I think is also poor. Most Christians don't look past the book or what their pastor/priest/minister tells them. Your premise is founded that the vast majority have grounded themselves which isn't the case. 99% will reply "how dare you" if evangelical to a "doubt it" for passive Church of Scotland goers.

Even a staunch believer can't deny I've not looked into it more than most. I just don't buy it based upon what I've discovered.

But how are you advancing the discussion by telling a contributor their point is irrelevant and poor?

As a non believer yourself I've yet to see any points you have made that distinguishes or raises the bar of the discussion, maybe you can point to them.

Your goalpost thing is pettifogging, divine words were left out by God's design after inspiring them. I guess he got a do-over.

You just arguing for the sake of it or you an ENTP like me?

I don't know what an ENTP is.

I just think you're making a poor argument. You make a big thing about doing lots of research and imply that those who disagree with you should do likewise, but I think you undermine that by making invalid points like the one I showed you.

Similar to other posters on the thread, I think you understand believers a lot less than you think.

I grew up in a church-going family and still know loads of people who believe this stuff. Your world where people aren't aware of how the Bible was put together is no more real than DA's where everyone listens to what the minister says and agrees with it.

People who believe in God aren't thick. They aren't incapable of doing research. They aren't ignorant of science. Not most of them.

Your average believer has been at this for decades, and while there will be varying levels of knowledge and interest, just as with football supporters, your assertion that the average believer doesn't look past the book or what the minister says is arrogant rubbish, to be blunt. This is a huge part of these folk's lives, and they invest time, energy, and money in it. They marry based on it. They make career choices based on it. You don't understand it more than them, and your posts on this thread show you don't understand them at all.

They just view the world completely differently to you and I. None of the points you're making will land with a believer. They know and understand what you're saying, but it's meangingless to them.

[Vietnam91]

10 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I don't know what an ENTP is.

You could research it .... 

[milton75]

7 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I don't know what an ENTP is.

I just think you're making a poor argument. You make a big thing about doing lots of research and imply that those who disagree with you should do likewise, but I think you undermine that by making invalid points like the one I showed you.

Similar to other posters on the thread, I think you understand believers a lot less than you think.

I grew up in a church-going family and still know loads of people who believe this stuff. Your world where people aren't aware of how the Bible was put together is no more real than DA's where everyone listens to what the minister says and agrees with it.

People who believe in God aren't thick. They aren't incapable of doing research. They aren't ignorant of science. Not most of them.

Your average believer has been at this for decades, and while there will be varying levels of knowledge and interest, just as with football supporters, your assertion that the average believer doesn't look past the book or what the minister says is arrogant rubbish, to be blunt. This is a huge part of these folk's lives, and they invest time, energy, and money in it. They marry based on it. They make career choices based on it. You don't understand it more than them, and your posts on this thread show you don't understand them at all.

They just view the world completely differently to you and I. None of the points you're making will land with a believer. They know and understand what you're saying, but it's meangingless to them.

All of that is a reasonable defence, and given your closeness to such people it's also reasonable that you'd make the case.

Your last paragraph is tge critical one though. Because none of what you've said changes the fact that the manner in which they view the world differently isn't about the Bible, Torah, whatever. It's about them being willing to believe something without the burden of proof and others of us not.

On the psychology of it, what is the difference between someone believing in everything you've mentioned and someone believing that the Earth is flat?

Because to use your words; they just view the world completely differently to you and I. None of the points you could make will land with a flat-Earther. They know and understand what you're saying, but it's meangingless to them.

[coprolite]

8 hours ago, Cheese said:

The old gods are the best anyway.

Titans> gods

[CityDave94]

We certainly do take the ability to read and write for granted, it gets forgotten that up about 150 years ago most people in Europe and North America couldn't do either. Up until the printing press was invented very few people owned a Bible. A Bible, hand written would only be in the hands of the powerful wealthy, or powerful wealthy church members. The ordinary Christian person living out their lives going back over these hundreds of years probably never ever saw a Bible, maybe heard about it yes, but see one? How then did Christianity spread and flourish then if there was no Bible?

Its like how did we manage to live without the internet, unspeakable to imagine that now?

Edited September 5 by CityDave94

[Granny Danger]

8 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

People who believe in God aren't thick. They aren't incapable of doing research. They aren't ignorant of science. Not most of them.

 

Some are, some aren’t.  Therein lies the conundrum, how can intelligent, logical people be so willing to believe something without any proof.

I can think of a couple of reasons.  They were effectively brainwashed as kids and find it hard to shrug off the indoctrination.  And/or they are really, really scared of dying so will buy into the mythology of an afterlife.

As to the first, I believe all organised religions to be bad (though within that there will be many followers who are decent people) but they are not all equally bad, some are quite benign.  The treatment of apostates is a clear indicator of the worst ones out there.

 

[CityDave94]

9 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

The council of Nicea had to come up with the conundrum of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and crowbar that as canon. They also left out gospels such as that of Thomas found as part of the Red Sea scrolls. Cast out because it essentially said there was no need for organised religion, a ruling class or ornate buildings, you can have a covenant with God anywhere, at any time.

I have nocissue with mortals compiling it but plenty was omitted because it didn't suit those doing the compiling.

When your employment and 7th century mortgage depend on ritual and faff, I'd say you're incentivised despite what the white bearded fella in the clouds thinks.

The council of Nicea was maybe the first orginised attempt by powerful wealthy to control Christianity, a pattern that is repeated by the powerful wealthy throughout our history and cultures in almost everything that has come from street level, example right there a religion of the people, taken from them, repackaged and sold back to them as a hire purchase.

Control the religion and then you have control of the people, control the people and take power and power = even more wealth .....in the name of God.

I'm sure Jesus would have not approved.

Cherry picking to suit is what everyone does, we always pick bits from here and there to fit our lifestyles or what we say to each other. This does make me think that the Bible to Christians is more a guide rather than to be taken completely literally and that it is up to the reader to decide what is truth. I mean how many translations and versions have there been over time?

[milton75]

I like the people that get married in church to avoid family conflict.

On the face of it, this seems a nice thing to do, but it's actually massively disrespectful and also could be argued to be blasphemous. 

Let's say granny will be upset if it's not a church wedding, but grandson or granddaughter doesn't believe in the faith but goes along with it:

1)
When they stand up in church to do their vows they are basically spitting in the faces of a) God, and b) the followers of God, including their grandmother. Because if it turned out that Granny's faith was in fact correct, then God, who is omniscient, would of course know that they are they are standing in His church and lying that they're getting married in His name and in his honour.
That to me would earn them eternal damnation, as they have taken His name in vain. They would go to Hell, along with murderers and rapists.
In the Catholic catechism, blasphemy is “uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. … The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.” (CCC 2148).
The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints. Standing in a holy place and making an oath in God's name while secretly being a disbeliever would certainly fall into this category.

In Reformation and post-Reformation doctrines, Matthew Henry described five categories of actions that constitute taking God's name in vain: 1) hypocrisy – making a profession of God's name, but not living up to that profession; 2) covenant breaking – if one makes promises to God yet does not carry out the promised actions; 3) rash swearing; 4) false swearing; and 5) using the name of God lightly and carelessly, for charms or spells, jest or sport. He pointed out that though a person may hold him/herself guiltless in one of these matters, the commandment specifically states that God will not.

2)
Worse, in many ways, are the actions of the family. If, in the scenario above, the grandmother or parents of the betrothed are aware that their child or grandchild doesn't really believe in God, but still wants them to go through the motions of the ceremony for tradition's sake or for fear of societal disapproval among their peers, then thy are in fact guilty of encouraging blasphemy. As believers they will be fully aware that this deception will be fully obvious and transparent to God, and yet they persist anyway.
They are therefore guilty not only of the sins outlined above, but also of the sin of Vanity. The scriptures teach that when Vanity enters our personal lives, it brings with it pride, jealousy, envy, strife, haughtiness, and many other negative things. Vanity devalues what’s important and puffs up what is trivial. Vanity peppers the mind with nervous questions: “How do I look?” “What will people think of me?” “Why wasn’t I honored instead of him?” Proverbs 16:18 warns that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” but vanity rarely listens to warnings.
Again, one can only surmise that Hell awaits those sinning so egregiously.

[Venti]

St Peter must be real.

All John Dory have his thumbprint on them,

So God is real & that's all the proof you need.

[VincentGuerin]

31 minutes ago, milton75 said:

I like the people that get married in church to avoid family conflict.

On the face of it, this seems a nice thing to do, but it's actually massively disrespectful and also could be argued to be blasphemous. 

Let's say granny will be upset if it's not a church wedding, but grandson or granddaughter doesn't believe in the faith but goes along with it:

1)
When they stand up in church to do their vows they are basically spitting in the faces of a) God, and b) the followers of God, including their grandmother. Because if it turned out that Granny's faith was in fact correct, then God, who is omniscient, would of course know that they are they are standing in His church and lying that they're getting married in His name and in his honour.
That to me would earn them eternal damnation, as they have taken His name in vain. They would go to Hell, along with murderers and rapists.
In the Catholic catechism, blasphemy is “uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. … The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.” (CCC 2148).
The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints. Standing in a holy place and making an oath in God's name while secretly being a disbeliever would certainly fall into this category.

In Reformation and post-Reformation doctrines, Matthew Henry described five categories of actions that constitute taking God's name in vain: 1) hypocrisy – making a profession of God's name, but not living up to that profession; 2) covenant breaking – if one makes promises to God yet does not carry out the promised actions; 3) rash swearing; 4) false swearing; and 5) using the name of God lightly and carelessly, for charms or spells, jest or sport. He pointed out that though a person may hold him/herself guiltless in one of these matters, the commandment specifically states that God will not.

2)
Worse, in many ways, are the actions of the family. If, in the scenario above, the grandmother or parents of the betrothed are aware that their child or grandchild doesn't really believe in God, but still wants them to go through the motions of the ceremony for tradition's sake or for fear of societal disapproval among their peers, then thy are in fact guilty of encouraging blasphemy. As believers they will be fully aware that this deception will be fully obvious and transparent to God, and yet they persist anyway.
They are therefore guilty not only of the sins outlined above, but also of the sin of Vanity. The scriptures teach that when Vanity enters our personal lives, it brings with it pride, jealousy, envy, strife, haughtiness, and many other negative things. Vanity devalues what’s important and puffs up what is trivial. Vanity peppers the mind with nervous questions: “How do I look?” “What will people think of me?” “Why wasn’t I honored instead of him?” Proverbs 16:18 warns that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” but vanity rarely listens to warnings.
Again, one can only surmise that Hell awaits those sinning so egregiously.

This is a kind of thinking that barely any religious people would subscribe to.

Religious people can't win here. They get criticised if they adhere strictly to every last letter ever written or spoken about their faith, but if they live in the real world and accept that weddings are nice things and that Jesus would probably be happy if they were nice to people, they get criticised for that too.

This whole post is one massive over-think.

[CityDave94]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Some are, some aren’t.  Therein lies the conundrum, how can intelligent, logical people be so willing to believe something without any proof.

I can think of a couple of reasons.  They were effectively brainwashed as kids and find it hard to shrug off the indoctrination.  And/or they are really, really scared of dying so will buy into the mythology of an afterlife.

As to the first, I believe all organised religions to be bad (though within that there will be many followers who are decent people) but they are not all equally bad, some are quite benign.  The treatment of apostates is a clear indicator of the worst ones out there.

 

Values (might be traditional), structure in a chaotic world, logical thinking, order and discipline (can be the idea or requirement of self discipline), comfort and community, strength, coping and healing through the bad times including helping others, faith. Among reasons.

Its down to that person's upbringing, environment and personal needs if this is to be an important part of their lives, certainly by the numbers intelligence has little to do with it same as non religious.

So GD as an intelligent, logical person can think of something you believe in that (might) lack proof and evidence? Doesn't have to anything massive, could be something small in importance.

 

[milton75]

8 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

This is a kind of thinking that barely any religious people would subscribe to.

Religious people can't win here. They get criticised if they adhere strictly to every last letter ever written or spoken about their faith, but if they live in the real world and accept that weddings are nice things and that Jesus would probably be happy if they were nice to people, they get criticised for that too.

This whole post is one massive over-think.

The whole post is merely reflecting on what the scriptures state. It's the opposite of over-think. I'm not analysing or critiquing the religion, simply citing tenets. 

And, by the way, given that the points in question stem from the 10 Commandments, the most basic pillars of what we call Christianity, I would hardly say I'm excessively asking people to "adhere strictly to every last letter ever written or spoken about their faith", as you're suggesting. I'm saying that they should follow its most fundamental principles.

Please tell me exactly where I'm wrong. Other than it being a bit inconvenient for some people of course.

Do you think that being mildly inconvenienced is enough to dissuade the faithful from wanting to enter God's kingdom in heaven?
It seems that I hold their faith in far greater regard than you do.