The Christian Theology Education Thread

[SlipperyP]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Jesus disappears from biblical history between being a teenager and his early thirties. I reckon he took a gap decade, learnt some Eastern philosophy and came back with his message of be nice to each other, chill out and stop worrying about how many goats you have.

Yes, does it ever mention his motives, again I probably being silly here.

As for disappearing to the east for decade....ffs Am I Jesus

[Boo Khaki]

4 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

Again, this my confusion. Why would a man of 'God' not teach his flok that there is other faiths... we all know they exist.

I agree, and I think this is close to the phenomenon that sometimes sees adherents of a faith get really p***kly and defensive when you ask honest questions about it, and especially so when someone does a bit of gentle mocking of the absurdities of faith and the toys get thrown out of the pram entirely.

If you are so absolutely convinced that you are willing to unquestioningly believe in a manner that demands you totally ignore all the irreconcilables and incongruities, why are you in any way bothered about non-believers questioning that? Surely your belief and surety is above all that?

[TxRover]

20 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

Again, this my confusion. Why would a man of 'God' not teach his flok that there is other faiths... we all know they exist.

Cynically, because God doesn’t pay the bill, bodies in the door does?

Some faiths tolerate the existence of other belief systems, and some even have a cosmological place for those adherents, but for the majority of Christianity it boiled down to believe or burn in hell…there is some improvement recently, but…

You would think that if the leaders believed in their system/beliefs/religion they would encourage people to try out the competition and expect people to come back, kinda like a Pepsi challenge. The fact they don’t endorse this behavior suggests a weakness in their system of beliefs.

[SlipperyP]

29 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Cynically, because God doesn’t pay the bill, bodies in the door does?

Some faiths tolerate the existence of other belief systems, and some even have a cosmological place for those adherents, but for the majority of Christianity it boiled down to believe or burn in hell…there is some improvement recently, but…

You would think that if the leaders believed in their system/beliefs/religion they would encourage people to try out the competition and expect people to come back, kinda like a Pepsi challenge. The fact they don’t endorse this behavior suggests a weakness in their system of beliefs.

I see what your typing, but is this just an American 1920's insolation happing all again. as @Boo Khaki said above the insecurity of ones beliefs is deafing, as I type  as laymen of 'teachings from a monk' I find the force of it all very 'Christian' in your face, nothing to learn. The word is spoken,

that can't right,

I'm not a believer of God, but I'll give him respect, to the people who believe... 

[TxRover]

3 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

I see what your typing, but is this just an American 1920's insolation happing all again. as @Boo Khaki said above the insecurity of ones beliefs is deafing, as I type  as laymen of 'teachings from a monk' I find the force of it all very 'Christian' in your face, nothing to learn. The word is spoken,

that can't right,

I'm not a believer of God, but I'll give him respect, to the people who believe... 

No, it’s right. The Abrahamic faith God(s) is a jealous and vindictive SOB, who mellows somewhat with time, but still has no problem condemning people to hell for things they had little to no control over. In particular, the Christian God has a lot to answer for with the doctrine of confession and absolution of sins.

On the whole, the concept of a “God” who is so self-centered as to demand worship from his creations is so anathema to most rational processes that it beggars belief. It just screams of a small, scared band of “people” who needed to feel important and thus created both a invisible sky spirit for just them and a process of bonding to said spook that gave them the warm fuzzies.

If you look at Buddhism (as I understand it), you find much of the schism and multi fold pathways to the goals that exist in Christianity, but without the harsh floods, turning into salt pillars, rending via wild animals or flames. Where Buddhism posits truths that can be used to help guide along the desired middle path, Christianity demands efforts to a single high path, but allows shortcuts (confessions, baptism, etc) and various tricks to win…Buddhism is about the journey, Christianity is about the destination.

[SlipperyP]

10 minutes ago, TxRover said:

If you look at Buddhism (as I understand it), you find much of the schism and multi fold pathways to the goals that exist in Christianity, but without the harsh floods, turning into salt pillars, rending via wild animals or flames. Where Buddhism posits truths that can be used to help guide along the desired middle path, Christianity demands efforts to a single high path, but allows shortcuts (confessions, baptism, etc) and various tricks to win…Buddhism is about the journey, Christianity is about the destination.

Buddhism is about the journey, Christianity is about the destination.

A destination  that nobody can achieve.

Buddhism can never ever be, that path is long...we can only point at Jews, Christens and Islams on the way.

The bus is never full.

 

 

 

[SlipperyP]

Watched a clip of Monks kicking a head around a temple in Myanmar about a year ago. Cause he was not one of them.

Put me up against the wall as a 'learner' not a believer

  

[Loonytoons]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

I agree, and I think this is close to the phenomenon that sometimes sees adherents of a faith get really p***kly and defensive when you ask honest questions about it, and especially so when someone does a bit of gentle mocking of the absurdities of faith and the toys get thrown out of the pram entirely.

If you are so absolutely convinced that you are willing to unquestioningly believe in a manner that demands you totally ignore all the irreconcilables and incongruities, why are you in any way bothered about non-believers questioning that? Surely your belief and surety is above all that?

When I was in 6th year many years ago, the very religious headmaster invited a high heedjun from the CoS to have a discussion with the 6th years.

He preceeded to have a pop at all the other religions then got slaughtered by us for being so intolerant of others beliefs.

The look on his face was priceless when he couldn't give reasonable answers when challenged.

[SlipperyP]

14 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

When I was in 6th year many years ago, the very religious headmaster invited a high heedjun from the CoS to have a discussion with the 6th years.

He preceeded to have a pop at all the other religions then got slaughtered by us for being so intolerant of others beliefs.

The look on his face was priceless when he couldn't give reasonable answers when challenged.

No being c**t, but similar story. I was 4th Year.

Over 1000 folk stood up for the vicar/headteacher as the arrived, apart from me.

Was pointed out by  c**t of teacher, then stood next to the vicar for the whole assembly, at the end the vicar said

'by God he gives me faith today'

I said at the top of my voice 'I;LL ONLY STAND FOR MY DAD, HE'S DEAD.  THAT SHITE WE HEARD...got bulldozed by Teacheer P.

Last day at school,    

[Loonytoons]

8 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

No being c**t, but similar story. I was 4th Year.

Over 1000 folk stood up for the vicar/headteacher as the arrived, apart from me.

Was pointed out by  c**t of teacher, then stood next to the vicar for the whole assembly, at the end the vicar said

'by God he gives me faith today'

I said at the top of my voice 'I;LL ONLY STAND FOR MY DAD, HE'S DEAD.  THAT SHITE WE HEARD...got bulldozed by Teacheer P.

Last day at school,    

Aye, we got our ear seriously bent by the headmaster after that. 

However, he was also at a loss when we challenged him about how the minister couldn't answer our queries.

[Boo Khaki]

We used to have regular visits from the CoS crew on Friday assembly. This was way before the days you could argue you were an atheist/agnostic and opt out. It was taken as read that if you were white and Scottish then you were Christian by default, and absent of proof of belonging to some other religion you were obliged to attend. The only exceptions I can recall were a white, Scots lad, no more or less religious than anyone else, who was granted an exception because his maw married into a family of Jehovas and they wanted him hooked out of all religious observation, so he was never present for xmas carols, assembly, easter etc, and obviously the few muslim pupils in the school were granted exemptions as well.

I put up with it until I was about 15, then I just used to deliberately saunter in at 9:30 once the whole thing had petered out. I got a few 'words' from the more senior members of staff, but they never really took it anywhere, and I now realise that had I really pushed it with my parents I expect they might have taken my side v's the school.

I expect things are probably somewhat different now, but this is another reason why I will not accept the 'but we don't foist our religion...' thing. It absolutely was foisted on me in my formative years, all the way from Primary 1 to 4th & 5th year in Secondary when I'd finally had enough and refused to participate. I can remember standing in Primary 2 'service' listening to a twinset wearing auld biddy recounting the tale of the resurrection and thinking at 6 years old 'that's a load of shite. Dead people don't come back from the dead, and why are you telling lies as a grown up?'. That's why I get really fucking angry when the religious start talking about 'Christian child' and so on. There is no such thing, there are just children with heads full of total shite that adults have drummed into them.

 

[SlipperyP]

6 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

Aye, we got our ear seriously bent by the headmaster after that. 

However, he was also at a loss when we challenged him about how the minister couldn't answer our queries.

Funny enough young Slippery was still selected for all football games for 6 months, I was a player tbh.

Governor before Paul Ince. (I was more a Billy Bremner)

I've medals and broken nose to my claim.  3 broken ribs in the semi

Scottish School Cup winner, you can look it up.

I  STAND FOR NOBODY.

 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

18 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I've asked religious people to explain to me how they believe God can create a universe and everything in it on whim, when it seems to be irreconcilable given that God must also be part of that universe. I've been told that God exists outside of the universe, which is more than enough for my 'hud oan a minute' meter to go rocketing off the scale, but then I've also asked why, if God exists outside of the universe, did he/she/it/they sit around on their arse for an eternity in a great nothingness before suddenly deciding to create everything. I haven't had an adequate response to that, but more concerning, I've also had it put to me that God 'willed' itself into existence prior to creating the universe, which is just all sorts of 'what the f**k?' given that something which does not exist can not possibly will itself to exist.

At that point I usually get brushed off with some variation on 'humans can not possibly comprehend', which is as much insulting as it is risible horseshit.

 

If you believe in the big bang, then that's the beginning of time, space and matter.

For the big bang to take place, then there would have to be a cause.  It's not unreasonable to suggest this cause would have to be timeless, spaceless and matterless.  

Given it's timeless nature, it certainly wouldn't have to 'sit on their arse for eternity' or have to 'hud oan a minute' because time wouldn't have existed prior to the big bang at all.

Humans not being able to possibly comprehend this is therefore a logical position to hold, given that all we know is time.  It's impossible to comprehend timelessness.  Even the comprehension takes time itself.

[Hedgecutter]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

You would think that if the leaders believed in their system/beliefs/religion they would encourage people to try out the competition and expect people to come back, kinda like a Pepsi challenge. The fact they don’t endorse this behavior suggests a weakness in their system of beliefs.

One of the things that grinds my gears about the hardcore select is that you just know that 99% of them have never given any of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of other religions any proper consideration.  Instead, they just jumped on the bandwagon of what either their parents or everyone else around them happened to follow, to the point that there are parts of the UK where you'll drive a mile down the road and find significantly different religious demographics.

Most hardcore Christians would probably be entrenched in another completely different religion had they grown up in another part of the world, and the strong geographical variations in the dominance of certain religions highlights the sheer ridiculousness of it all.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Hedgecutter
rage-induced typo

[Boo Khaki]

It is not 'impossible to comprehend timelessness', it's just difficult for humans to conceive of any time period without a distinct beginning and end, because that's how our brains are accustomed to thinking about time.

You are positing one particular interpretation of 'big bang', and it's one that is totally out of date. 'Big bang' does not necessitate creation of matter, nor does it correlate with the beginning of the 'existence of time', or space, or matter.

Given what we know about the lifecycle of stars, and the properties of black holes, it seems entirely likely that the universe we inhabit is just the descendent of a potentially infinitesimal number of previous universes. This is also consistent with the fact that we know our universe is still expanding into 'nothingness'.

There is absolutely nothing about 'prior to the big bang' that necessitates the existence of a creator, or suggests there was 'nothing' prior to 'our' big bang. The universe, and more up to date big bang hypothesis still function perfectly adequately without a creator. 

I find that last part interesting, in that the more we find out, the theme of not requiring a creator stays consistent and the hypothesis remains workable, yet conversely the concept of a creator being becomes more and more absurd because of its redundancy.

Quote

If you believe in the big bang, then that's the beginning of time, space and matter.

 It's the origin point of our universe, but there is no requirement for it to be the beginning of time, space, or matter if it's nothing more than the origin point of the latest universe.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[SlipperyP]

28 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

That's why I get really fucking angry when the religious start talking about 'Christian child' and so on. There is no such thing, there are just children with heads full of total shite that adults have drummed into them.

Never get angry bro, that's there moto, anger, hatred and fear.

 

[coprolite]

14 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

 

If you believe in the big bang, then that's the beginning of time, space and matter.

For the big bang to take place, then there would have to be a cause.  It's not unreasonable to suggest this cause would have to be timeless, spaceless and matterless.  

Given it's timeless nature, it certainly wouldn't have to 'sit on their arse for eternity' or have to 'hud oan a minute' because time wouldn't have existed prior to the big bang at all.

Humans not being able to possibly comprehend this is therefore a logical position to hold, given that all we know is time.  It's impossible to comprehend timelessness.  Even the comprehension takes time itself.

If the big bang did happen like physicists say it did then it didn't  have a cause.

It can't have because time didn't exist before that. Cause and effect is a human construct that can only exist in the flow of time that we experience. 

I don't comprehend that at all to be honest.

I don't think that my lack of understanding is any sort of reason to give credence to Bronze Age stories. 

[SlipperyP]

24 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

 

If you believe in the big bang, then that's the beginning of time, space and matter.

For the big bang to take place, then there would have to be a cause.  It's not unreasonable to suggest this cause would have to be timeless, spaceless and matterless.  

Given it's timeless nature, it certainly wouldn't have to 'sit on their arse for eternity' or have to 'hud oan a minute' because time wouldn't have existed prior to the big bang at all.

Humans not being able to possibly comprehend this is therefore a logical position to hold, given that all we know is time.  It's impossible to comprehend timelessness.  Even the comprehension takes time itself.

not sure, read it 3 times,  not sure. give it to me as a boy from the sticks.

As i said i'm a learner, 

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, SlipperyP said:

Never get angry bro, that's there moto, anger, hatred and fear.

 

'Angry' is overstating it. I'd still absolutely defend any adult's right to believe whatever they like no matter how absurd I personally find it, it's just in the particular example of children, it 'puts my gas at a peep' if you like.

If, as they often contend, religious parents are not pushy and leave their kids to make up their own minds, I'd expect to see a lot more instances of Catholic parents with children who insist on wearing a hijab or kippah and such, but instead what you invariably see is children who are either share their parents' faith, or, if they are fortunate enough to truly be given enough space to develop their critical thinking skills and escape it, children who realise it's a load of keek and become agnostic/atheist.

In my hypothetical antitheist state, it would be an offence for children to be subjected to religious dogma, education, or observance prior to turning 16. I totally accept that's 'intolerant' and at odds with my belief in personal freedom, but it's such an insidious thing, especially when it's foisted upon children, that I think it really should be regarded as a safeguarding matter. I don't accept at all that 'teaching about the various faiths' is healthy, because the faiths aren't going anywhere, so if a 16 year old wants to research them objectively then they are still absolutely free to do so at 16 years old, once they have developed the ability to think somewhat critically about esoteric concepts. I do object in the strongest possible terms to telling kids of 4 and 5 that 'jesus died' for their benefit, or that if they do certain things they will be going to hell. That needs to get in the fucking sea.

[Salvo Montalbano]

31 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

 

If you believe in the big bang, then that's the beginning of time, space and matter.

For the big bang to take place, then there would have to be a cause.  It's not unreasonable to suggest this cause would have to be timeless, spaceless and matterless.  

Given it's timeless nature, it certainly wouldn't have to 'sit on their arse for eternity' or have to 'hud oan a minute' because time wouldn't have existed prior to the big bang at all.

Humans not being able to possibly comprehend this is therefore a logical position to hold, given that all we know is time.  It's impossible to comprehend timelessness.  Even the comprehension takes time itself.

There are plenty of people in the scientific community, including Astronomers and Big Bang Theorists who are quite happy to concede that the Big Bang may well have been something that some "God" may have done. Where most draw the line however is the other stuff, the bits about it being "my" God rather than possibly being someone else's God, the bits about omnipresence, the bits about Jesus, the bits about God being someone or something that punishes people, etc. Seems quite sensible to me, tbh