First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Christianity- Can it truly be considered Monotheistic?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/9/10 , edited 12/9/10



No, it isn't. It is because we question waaaaay too much (which certain people think is a must so as not to fall into what we call blind faith) that we sometimes confuse ourselves more than necessary.


Questioning it the basis of the attainment of knowledge, when we question that which can be questioned, and rationalise everything out, from thence comes reason and knowledge.


Before I go on, I am no expert on religion stuffs, just trying to explain what I understand. Now, God was always there - even before time came to existence. By simple definition, God, in this case, refers to the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). Put the two pieces together, Jesus was always there as the Son of God, sharing an eternal relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit.


So, Jesus always existed, but he felt it high time to come during the Roman Occupation, so as to let the righteous before him suffer? Why didn’t he just appear in the beginning, or, by the power vested in him, just put everything he wants down beforehand- after all, he is one with God and also omnipotent and omniscient. Or, maybe he does exist, but have fully matured and broke away as a almost seperate entity.


Through Mary, the Father sent His only Son to earth. And it wasn't a tour of course, for the sins of mankind are forgiven through His death on the Cross (don't ask me if non-believers are included, I don't know). And when Jesus died, He rose again to Heaven and sat on the right hand of the Father, being the only one who is ever resurrected. This implies that His death did not end His life, unlike what some people may believe that when we die, we rot in our own graves and that's it. So that proves that God isn't deceased. And I think I've answered your question?


So, salvation shouldn’t matter, because I do not need to have any particular merit to merit it- because since he died, and our sins are forgiven, I not only don’t need to be a Christian, I can be a rapist, adulterer, murderer, and jaywalking Sabbath Breaker, and I still can go through the Pearly gates?
Also, because he ressurected, that mean, for a time, God was dead, and then decided to come back to life, right, and now decided to go back to heaven. So, instead of clarifying, I am even more confused.
Posted 12/9/10

Titus2woman wrote:

Papagolfwhiskey, thank you for that insight!

DomFortress, I am interested in your criticisms of religion and always welcome a hearty discussion of differing opinions!!! I'm not a fan of name calling though. (((((HUGS))))) sandi

It's not name-calling when I can prove it with factual evidences, or rather that's myself telling it like it is.
17060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Dreamland
Offline
Posted 12/9/10

longfenglim wrote:
Questioning it the basis of the attainment of knowledge, when we question that which can be questioned, and rationalise everything out, from thence comes reason and knowledge.

Didn't I say, questioning a little too much sometimes confuse ourselves? And in that mass confusion we forget that faith is the bridge between man and God. If all questions were answered...well I don't know what happens then.


So, Jesus always existed, but he felt it high time to come during the Roman Occupation, so as to let the righteous before him suffer? Why didn’t he just appear in the beginning, or, by the power vested in him, just put everything he wants down beforehand- after all, he is one with God and also omnipotent and omniscient. Or, maybe he does exist, but have fully matured and broke away as a almost seperate entity.

I think your question is inappropriate, a question for God Himself. Assuming that Jesus came during an early period, you'd probably question why He came in that period instead of the times of Roman Occupation. I believe even Christians are not revealed to full the mysteries of God, so you can keep guessing why Jesus came at that specific period. But if Jesus submits to the will of His Father, then I'm sure the Father have a reason for it, for God's ways are not our ways.


So, salvation shouldn’t matter, because I do not need to have any particular merit to merit it- because since he died, and our sins are forgiven, I not only don’t need to be a Christian, I can be a rapist, adulterer, murderer, and jaywalking Sabbath Breaker, and I still can go through the Pearly gates?

I don't quite think so. I've heard of Christians who actually believe that whatever they do, they'll still end up in paradise, while some others believe that to enter Heaven is as hard as entering the hole of a needle. You can answer for yourself whether or not you will go through the Pearly (why Pearly?) gates after you go through (hopefully not) the actions mentioned above. Rationally, I don't think so, or the priests won't be asking the Christians to stay away from sin. I believe God is fair, He'll decide.


Also, because he ressurected, that mean, for a time, God was dead, and then decided to come back to life, right, and now decided to go back to heaven. So, instead of clarifying, I am even more confused.

Well if you decide you want to know more, other experts are ready to help you. I'm not too sure what you actually want to know, so this is a simple explanation I can offer based on your sentence quoted. Jesus is in whole, Son of God AND Son of Man. Not half of each as what some may think. The term 'death' to Jesus only means descending to the dead and 'resurrection' means ascending up to Heaven again. If you say God was dead, you're forgetting the Father and the Holy Spirit.

If you want to know any further, I'm afraid you'll need to ask Christian religious people. This is as far as I can help
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/9/10 , edited 12/9/10



Didn't I say, questioning a little too much sometimes confuse ourselves? And in that mass confusion we forget that faith is the bridge between man and God. If all questions were answered...well I don't know what happens then.


Forgive me for preaching, but I believe that all knowledge should be derived rationally, and that any empirical evidence, or any sort, should only play second fiddle to rational derivation of truth, and therefore Reason alone should be the ultimate source of knowledge. While faith is enough for some people, it does not address any rational concerns that arises from disbelief in a diety. Descartes tried to reconcile Rationalism with dubious success, but I am no philosopher, and therefore it isn't within my realm to discuss this at lenght.



I think your question is inappropriate, a question for God Himself. Assuming that Jesus came during an early period, you'd probably question why He came in that period instead of the times of Roman Occupation. I believe even Christians are not revealed to full the mysteries of God, so you can keep guessing why Jesus came at that specific period. But if Jesus submits to the will of His Father, then I'm sure the Father have a reason for it, for God's ways are not our ways.


It is necessary to question long held belief as long held beliefs are not a product of deduction alone, but, rather, conditioning. Thus, let us start with something we can both agree on, that is, ideally, the idea that 'Jesus saves all by dying for our sins and giving us the new commandment, therefore is necessary for salvation', God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, and (assumingly) that Jesus has always existed, and that we are given free will by God. By the very definition, all this falls to pieces, as follows:

1. God is Good- given by the definition of Omnibenevolent
2. God has always existed- definition of God
3. Because God is Good, God shall work in the best interest of his creation
4. Jesus is necessary for salvation
5. Because God is Good, and working in our best interest, he would, therefore, in addition, want to maximize our salvation.
6. Thus, it falls to reason, that, because Jesus is necessary for Salvation, and God would want to maximize our salvation, he would've revelled the form of Christ upon the creation of man.
7. This obviously didn't happen.

Thus, coming to conclusion seven, we must question the line of reasoning and the base. The base being commonly accepted Theology, and the seven points being a logical continuation of those ideas, therefore, it is either there is fault upon the base, or fault upon me, and, being confident in my power of reasoning, I would have to say the base is wrong.



I don't quite think so. I've heard of Christians who actually believe that whatever they do, they'll still end up in paradise, while some others believe that to enter Heaven is as hard as entering the hole of a needle. You can answer for yourself whether or not you will go through the Pearly (why Pearly?) gates after you go through (hopefully not) the actions mentioned above. Rationally, I don't think so, or the priests won't be asking the Christians to stay away from sin. I believe God is fair, He'll decide.


How, then, is one justified?


Well if you decide you want to know more, other experts are ready to help you. I'm not too sure what you actually want to know, so this is a simple explanation I can offer based on your sentence quoted. Jesus is in whole, Son of God AND Son of Man. Not half of each as what some may think. The term 'death' to Jesus only means descending to the dead and 'resurrection' means ascending up to Heaven again. If you say God was dead, you're forgetting the Father and the Holy Spirit.

If you want to know any further, I'm afraid you'll need to ask Christian religious people. This is as far as I can help


I apologise if I sounded provocative- but, rationally, the base argument for Miss Cornrollpoof's assertion that Jesus is God is unsound, whereas you assert that Jesus is a part of God- I am quite interested in Christian theology mainly because it is foriegn to me- being raised in a Chinese Buddhist Community, and, additionally, still a practicing Chinese Buddhist.
17060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Dreamland
Offline
Posted 12/9/10

longfenglim wrote:
Forgive me for preaching, but I believe that all knowledge should be derived rationally, and that any empirical evidence, or any sort, should only play second fiddle to rational derivation of truth, and therefore Reason alone should be the ultimate source of knowledge. While faith is enough for some people, it does not address any rational concerns that arises from disbelief in a diety. Descartes tried to reconcile Rationalism with dubious success, but I am no philosopher, and therefore it isn't within my realm to discuss this at lenght.

I understand what you're trying to say, but unfortunately religions (Christianity at least, if not all others), will always hold mysteries until Revelation. What binds a person to God is faith, as mentioned earlier. So we give up either one - reasoning, or God. Christians chose to leave reasoning, from partially to some extent, as not all Christians don't reason. I see your stand and it is rational to testify an issue such as this by reasoning to the very roots, but I am in no position to tell you what is right or what is wrong.


It is necessary to question long held belief as long held beliefs are not a product of deduction alone, but, rather, conditioning. Thus, let us start with something we can both agree on, that is, ideally, the idea that 'Jesus saves all by dying for our sins and giving us the new commandment, therefore is necessary for salvation', God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, and (assumingly) that Jesus has always existed, and that we are given free will by God. By the very definition, all this falls to pieces, as follows:

1. God is Good- given by the definition of Omnibenevolent
2. God has always existed- definition of God
3. Because God is Good, God shall work in the best interest of his creation
4. Jesus is necessary for salvation
5. Because God is Good, and working in our best interest, he would, therefore, in addition, want to maximize our salvation.
6. Thus, it falls to reason, that, because Jesus is necessary for Salvation, and God would want to maximize our salvation, he would've revelled the form of Christ upon the creation of man.
7. This obviously didn't happen.

Thus, coming to conclusion seven, we must question the line of reasoning and the base. The base being commonly accepted Theology, and the seven points being a logical continuation of those ideas, therefore, it is either there is fault upon the base, or fault upon me, and, being confident in my power of reasoning, I would have to say the base is wrong.

I do not know whether the fault lies upon the base or you, but I can't see point #3 onwards clearly. God shall work in the best interest of his creations. Surely it is joy to God that we be with Him in the end (in Christianity's point of view, by following the Ten Commandments, love all others, do good deeds, etc..), but if I as a human may question, wouldn't it be the much more simpler by giving us Heaven directly instead of giving us the freedom to choose? This is related to points #5, about salvation. I do believe He wants to maximize our salvation, but it is ultimately up to us whether to choose Him, or not. After all, that is the freedom He gave us.

For point #6, I think I've mentioned, "...for God's ways are not our ways.". Such a reasoning is not for me to decide whether it is true or not. Should I be wrong, I'd be pointing you in the wrong direction. Best if you could direct this reasoning to experts, priests or bishops if possible. Though, IMO, if we were to be reveled the form of Christ ever since the very beginning, that sounds like part of our freedom is taken away.


How, then, is one justified?

As much as you and I wish to know, I just don't have the answer to God's ways of justifying a person =\


I apologise if I sounded provocative- but, rationally, the base argument for Miss Cornrollpoof's assertion that Jesus is God is unsound, whereas you assert that Jesus is a part of God- I am quite interested in Christian theology mainly because it is foriegn to me- being raised in a Chinese Buddhist Community, and, additionally, still a practicing Chinese Buddhist.

Jesus is a part of God.. Well I don't know if that sentence is correct, but it is more accurate to say that Jesus IS God. I know, to comprehend this is like doing something impossible, but it is just the way it is, God's mysteries. Hence, reasoning any further won't bring any answers. Probably a clearer view on the topic, but not the exact answer. In other words, God exists in three 'persons', but the term 'person' does not match the meaning of the English word 'person' we use to day.

And you weren't provocative, I was. I apologize for my ignorance. ><
22058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / US, Nebraska
Offline
Posted 12/10/10

I say the Bible was that way because itself was a patch work of ideas from several bigots, when the relationship with the one true God is exclusive only for the Christians who worship him. That's inequality right there, not spirituality. When that will only make those so-called Christians to "feel" good about themselves, while at the same time they'll treat non-Christians and their beliefs with contempt, and that's narcissism.

Finally comparing the theologians' "completed" Trinity of Christian God and Newton's still incomplete theory of gravity doesn't work, when 1)unlike the so-called Christian God who will treat and judge the non-Christians and "sinners" differently, gravity OTOH is universal wherever gravitational force can be observed between two objects, and 2)unlike the "completed" thereby "perfection" of the Trinity, the human concept on the laws of gravity was made different when Einstein redefined gravity itself as any objective with mass warping the space-time continuum, using the theory of general relativity. So unlike how the human bigotry, inequality, and narcissism in the Bible itself will not change simply because how it was intended to be, the human theory of gravity itself will change along with the ever expanding human knowledge of the universe itself.


The relationship with the one true God is not exclusive to Christians. From the Christian perspective, with it being catholic or universal, it applies to all. If you are a Christian you just have a better understanding of it. A person that has a sounder understanding of science is in a better position to use it. Are Christians and non-Christians treated differently, well yeah. Anyone who is given more has more expected out of them. Now when you get to questions of salvation and justification there are a lot of different ideas, a lot of that can be scene with the different denominations. Once you get to those questions for those outside of those who practice the Christian faith, how it may happen is unknown. The question is not one of equality, it is one of equity. The idea of God as Father should point out that not everyone is treated the same, a parent needs to be responsive to the needs of the child. It situation is different and fits a different context.

I would also argue that the idea of the Trinity is far from "complete," there is a lot more physics unknown about the exact nature of gravity especially with how it relates to other phenomenons, there is still a lot also unknown about the exact nature of the Trinity. The Bible, theologians, and Christianity are not trying to give a comprehensive outline of the exact workings of the universe, they are trying to find principles to which to apply things to life. There is still plenty of mystery left to both the Trinity and gravity, yet more and more aspects can be learned about both.

Another point, non-Christians are not the only "sinners." We are all sinners. If you believe you are a Christian and not a sinner, you better check your faith.
Posted 12/10/10

jam15007 wrote:



The relationship with the one true God is not exclusive to Christians. From the Christian perspective, with it being catholic or universal, it applies to all. If you are a Christian you just have a better understanding of it. A person that has a sounder understanding of science is in a better position to use it. Are Christians and non-Christians treated differently, well yeah. Anyone who is given more has more expected out of them. Now when you get to questions of salvation and justification there are a lot of different ideas, a lot of that can be scene with the different denominations. Once you get to those questions for those outside of those who practice the Christian faith, how it may happen is unknown. The question is not one of equality, it is one of equity. The idea of God as Father should point out that not everyone is treated the same, a parent needs to be responsive to the needs of the child. It situation is different and fits a different context.

I would also argue that the idea of the Trinity is far from "complete," there is a lot more physics unknown about the exact nature of gravity especially with how it relates to other phenomenons, there is still a lot also unknown about the exact nature of the Trinity. The Bible, theologians, and Christianity are not trying to give a comprehensive outline of the exact workings of the universe, they are trying to find principles to which to apply things to life. There is still plenty of mystery left to both the Trinity and gravity, yet more and more aspects can be learned about both.

Another point, non-Christians are not the only "sinners." We are all sinners. If you believe you are a Christian and not a sinner, you better check your faith.
The concept of parent and child is a human one, and even that responsibility is subjected to change over one's lifetime. To not recognize that change is to not evolve, which is why regardless of how many denominations there is within the Christian faith, the authoritarian style of parenting is still the fundamental essence within all of them. And that's still inequality through bigotry; you unjustly discriminated everyone as "sinner" with your Christian "faith":

big·ot·ry
   /ˈbɪgətri/ [big-uh-tree]
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.(citation)
711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Wishing for Jeju...
Offline
Posted 12/10/10
HHHMMMM... I am a Christian and an attachment parenter. Would that be an authoritarian style of parenting? (((((HUGS))))) sandi
Posted 12/10/10 , edited 12/10/10

Titus2woman wrote:

HHHMMMM... I am a Christian and an attachment parenter. Would that be an authoritarian style of parenting? (((((HUGS))))) sandi
Whoever said authoritarianism is exclusively a religious trend? You're better off learning how to do your own thinking, but that would require yourself to come up with your own original thought through analysis. Not superficial self-labeling nor ignorant overgeneralizing.
711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Wishing for Jeju...
Offline
Posted 12/10/10
I'm sorry, I took you to mean that all Christian parents are authoritarian. Did I err? (((((HUGS))))) sandi
22058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / US, Nebraska
Offline
Posted 12/10/10 , edited 12/10/10
Can you explain to me what sin is? If you are going to make the claim that Christians unjustly mark others as sinners, then I'm looking for a little clarification on what you think sin is.

Also with respect to the father-son, or at least parent-child. Yes, that relationship changes. If the only thing one remembers is Christianity as a child, then yes its going to seem authoritarian, but for most of ones life one is an adult, and that relationship changes. The father of the prodigal son really didn't show authoritarianism. The problems of Cain and Able was not due to the father running roughshod over his children. Besides once a child has a child of their own, that relationship will probably change.

If anything with the birth of Jesus, the whole relationship illuminates another facet of the dynamic. The master becomes the servant. The one with the authority shouldn't lord that authority over others for the sake of it. The one with the authority should do at the service of others. If undergoing to role as a father, it should not be done for the hollow feeling of power, one should play that role to give out of love. Of course people will fall short.
Posted 12/10/10

jam15007 wrote:

Can you explain to me what sin is? If you are going to make the claim that Christians unjustly mark others as sinners, then I'm looking for a little clarification on what you think sin is.

Also with respect to the father-son, or at least parent-child. Yes, that relationship changes. If the only thing one remembers is Christianity as a child, then yes its going to seem authoritarian, but for most of ones life one is an adult, and that relationship changes. The father of the prodigal son really didn't show authoritarianism. The problems of Cain and Able was not due to the father running roughshod over his children. Besides once a child has a child of their own, that relationship will probably change.

If anything with the birth of Jesus, the whole relationship illuminates another facet of the dynamic. The master becomes the servant. The one with the authority shouldn't lord that authority over others for the sake of it. The one with the authority should do at the service of others. If undergoing to role as a father, it should not be done for the hollow feeling of power, one should play that role to give out of love. Of course people will fall short.
Look this over, and you tell me just what I think unjustified inequality is. When all you managed to achieve is more inequality, not real power dynamic in term of social exchange theory. And please, do address my scrutiny using the information that I've provided.
22058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / US, Nebraska
Offline
Posted 12/11/10
Ok so I misstated its not another facet that it illuminates, it illuminates it in another way. It really shouldn't change the social exchange theory, it shouldn't really be a paradigm shift. It places that if one should have a higher and unequal place, they have a responsibility to use their power and authority within a proper order. If there is abuse, it is not the problem of the relationship, it is the problem with the individual. If you want equality in the parent child relationship, the child will suffer. I myself am not trying to achieve equality or inequality, the problem comes back to sin or rather I may say that people are very apt in one way or another to go against their own moral principles of what they think is right or wrong, even if you disregard Christian morality. Granted one may get to the point where they rationalize the principle away. Due to people being the way they are, as others try to lay down a law or regulation to better the situation, the way around it has also set.
Posted 12/11/10

jam15007 wrote:

Ok so I misstated its not another facet that it illuminates, it illuminates it in another way. It really shouldn't change the social exchange theory, it shouldn't really be a paradigm shift. It places that if one should have a higher and unequal place, they have a responsibility to use their power and authority within a proper order. If there is abuse, it is not the problem of the relationship, it is the problem with the individual. If you want equality in the parent child relationship, the child will suffer. I myself am not trying to achieve equality or inequality, the problem comes back to sin or rather I may say that people are very apt in one way or another to go against their own moral principles of what they think is right or wrong, even if you disregard Christian morality. Granted one may get to the point where they rationalize the principle away. Due to people being the way they are, as others try to lay down a law or regulation to better the situation, the way around it has also set.
And which of the two individuals has the power to stop the abuse in the first place? The powerful or the powerless? The parent or the child? What categorical reason that supports your claim of "If you want equality in the parent child relationship, the child will suffer", and with what empirical evidence? Have you completely ignored the existence of authoritative parenting style? How does this fact contradicts the biblical teaching of corporal punishment?
22058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / US, Nebraska
Offline
Posted 12/12/10

And which of the two individuals has the power to stop the abuse in the first place? The powerful or the powerless? The parent or the child? What categorical reason that supports your claim of "If you want equality in the parent child relationship, the child will suffer", and with what empirical evidence? Have you completely ignored the existence of authoritative parenting style? How does this fact contradicts the biblical teaching of corporal punishment?


The abuser can drictly stop the abuse by stopping abusing, and depending on the situation the victim may stop the abuse if that person has enough power to avoid the situation. A lot of that dependings upon the context of the relationship.

As far as empirical evidence that could be found in cases of neglict that could found in Child Protective Services in each state.

I have not ignored authoritative parenting style. As a matter within the context of the Bible it is more supported than authoritarianism. Correction and disciple far more implied than the need for corporal punishment.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.