• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Respecting Christians

mutile said:
Not my area of expertise, something about jesus I think, you tell me.
Click to expand...

Well yeah Christians are by definition followers of Jesus. How they interpret the Bible, Tradition, Revelation and his message vary rather a bit though. I have seen three friends today who are all Christian: quite unusual as very few of my friends are. One is a gay Roman Catholic of very orthodox beliefs (he has just written a book on it); one a Fundamentalist with very strong Evangelical beliefs, and one a Unitarian. I don't know if we could get them to agree on much?

cj x
 
dafydd said:
No need to sign your posts, we know who you are. The avatar and the name give it away.
Click to expand...

??? In what way??? I'm genuinely confused. Oh you mean the cj x - just habit I'm afraid. It's how I signed off emails to the girlfriend and friends, I just do it automatically.

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
Well yeah Christians are by definition followers of Jesus. How they interpret the Bible, Tradition, Revelation and his message vary rather a bit though. I
Click to expand...

That is my problem with Christianity. The bible, the infallible word of god, is a pick 'n' mix free-for-all. Rather amusing to an atheist like me.
 
cj.23 said:
??? In what way??? I'm genuinely confused. Oh you mean the cj x - just habit I'm afraid. It's how I signed off emails to the girlfriend and friends, I just do it automatically.
Click to expand...

There are two other members who sign their posts. Jabba and Yrreg.
 
dafydd said:
There are two other members who sign their posts. Jabba and Yrreg.
Click to expand...

I recall Yrreg vaguely, but only as a name. Never met Jabba. Does DOC not sign his? If you think I might be one of these posters, I'm not. I have posted on and off for ages, and my blog is linked at the bottom of my posts, I have never been bothered to conceal my identity, as I don't see the point in trolling or being antagonistic. Darat can probably vouch I am epically tedious, but not a sock puppet.

cj x
 
I don't think following jesus deserves respect but a christian may earn respect in other areas, for most I've met it doesn't seem to be a big part of their lives at least they don't act like it is.
 
dafydd said:
That is my problem with Christianity. The bible, the infallible word of god, is a pick 'n' mix free-for-all. Rather amusing to an atheist like me.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, that's one of my problems with it, too. If a person truly believes in the same god who refuses to allow belief and/or worship of other gods, and has laws specifically against homo-sexuality, among other things, then why ever would one risk their very soul by picking and choosing?

That confuses me. This, and likely any other god, is not an entity who is likely to bargain, is he/she? If not, then if you mess with what they demand of a follower, than that follower is royally screwed for all eternity. Or do I have this wrong?
 
cj.23 said:
Exactly like that. It tells you nothing beyond one belief. Ditto someone saying they are a Christian; or they don't like fish. You can't generalize from it, or shouldn't if wise :)

cj x
Click to expand...

Do you think Christ rose from the dead?
 
mutile said:
I don't think following jesus deserves respect but a christian may earn respect in other areas, for most I've met it doesn't seem to be a big part of their lives at least they don't act like it is.
Click to expand...

See the True Christian thread in which I said that if we ever find a real Christian then he or she should be exhibited under a glass dome.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
That is my problem with Christianity. The bible, the infallible word of god, is a pick 'n' mix free-for-all. Rather amusing to an atheist like me.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by infallible? Do you mean inerrant? Biblical inerrancy actually means different things to different Christians. Is the Bible the centre of Christianity? Nope.

The centre of Christian belief is the idea of God revealing himself through Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and his death on the Cross redeeming the sinner and recreating the universe.

The Bible is one of four ways in which Christians believe we can have knowledge of God...

The four sources usually mentioned are

1. Natural Theology - drawing conclusions about the need for or attributes of the Creator from the Creation. All natural sciences were therefore seen as part of the theological endeavour. You clearly engage in this, by looking at the Universe and seeing an absence of proof, but from Isaiah onwards the Bible does make clear that we are meant to be able to see vestiges of the Creator in the fallen Creation - or God's footprints in the world. Reason and logic are also considered part of this - Paul claims Christianity is a rationally defensible faith.

2. Church Tradition - often overlooked, Christians also draw upon traditions of how things have been done and "what we have always believed". This includes stuff like Creeds, Councils, sacramental systems, worship styles, traditional interpretations, canon law, etc. We must recall that the New Testament canon was set in line with the existing Church practice - the earliest couple of centuries of Christians had no New Testament just what we now call the Old Testament - yet clearly that was not the "manual" of their faith. This Tradition is believed shaped by God's intervention directly in the life and development of the Church. An very extreme development of this is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which I personally do not hold, not being a Roman Catholic.)

3. Religious Experience - vitally, the Christian church claims that any believer can directly encounter God, in a number of ways, and have their life changed by that religious experience. Prayer is by far the most common personal way of interacting with the Divine, but others exist. A lot of my own academic work was on analyzing different types of religious experience and its impacts. You can do this quite objectively - see the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, comparison studies like my work on psychedelic experience and mystical experience, or Persinger's neurological experiment attempting to generate religious experience 'artificially'. Furthermore a large number of studies have been conducted on prayer and it efficacy or lack thereof. Furthermore, you can test it yourself on a personal subjective level.

4. Scriptures - The Bible -- yep, the Bible as cited. Yet the historic Christian tradition has been to draw on all four trends, and to attempt to understand God in the light of the whole picture. Sublation is a commonly used principle in interpreting the Bible - so the "God of Love and Grace" trumps the genocidal motifs of the earlier Scriptures in Christian theology. The Bible is a document detailing an evolution of religious thought - I think it is clear to any objective reader it sets out not one consistent theology, but an unfolding chronological series of insights and developments? If not, we would all be still practising the Ancient Jewish faith, and stoning folks?

I'm not sure if this clarifies at all, but I think it is important. Any thoughts? Different denominations place varying degrees of stress on these four - we could possibly even chart them! Still I hope it clarifies a little

cj x
 
Minarvia said:
In all honesty, that's one of my problems with it, too. If a person truly believes in the same god who refuses to allow belief and/or worship of other gods, and has laws specifically against homo-sexuality, among other things, then why ever would one risk their very soul by picking and choosing?

That confuses me. This, and likely any other god, is not an entity who is likely to bargain, is he/she? If not, then if you mess with what they demand of a follower, than that follower is royally screwed for all eternity. Or do I have this wrong?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think that the bible is a very boring book of fairy stories.
 
dafydd said:
See the True Christian thread in which I said that if we ever find a real Christian then he or she should be exhibited under a glass dome.
Click to expand...

Or mate them with a True Scotsman and breed a Apostlic Sporran?

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
What do you mean by infallible? Do you mean inerrant? Biblical inerrancy actually means different things to different Christians. Is the Bible the centre of Christianity? Nope.

The centre of Christian belief is the idea of God revealing himself through Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and his death on the Cross redeeming the sinner and recreating the universe.

The Bible is one of four ways in which Christians believe we can have knowledge of God...

The four sources usually mentioned are

1. Natural Theology - drawing conclusions about the need for or attributes of the Creator from the Creation. All natural sciences were therefore seen as part of the theological endeavour. You clearly engage in this, by looking at the Universe and seeing an absence of proof, but from Isaiah onwards the Bible does make clear that we are meant to be able to see vestiges of the Creator in the fallen Creation - or God's footprints in the world. Reason and logic are also considered part of this - Paul claims Christianity is a rationally defensible faith.

2. Church Tradition - often overlooked, Christians also draw upon traditions of how things have been done and "what we have always believed". This includes stuff like Creeds, Councils, sacramental systems, worship styles, traditional interpretations, canon law, etc. We must recall that the New Testament canon was set in line with the existing Church practice - the earliest couple of centuries of Christians had no New Testament just what we now call the Old Testament - yet clearly that was not the "manual" of their faith. This Tradition is believed shaped by God's intervention directly in the life and development of the Church. An very extreme development of this is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which I personally do not hold, not being a Roman Catholic.)

3. Religious Experience - vitally, the Christian church claims that any believer can directly encounter God, in a number of ways, and have their life changed by that religious experience. Prayer is by far the most common personal way of interacting with the Divine, but others exist. A lot of my own academic work was on analyzing different types of religious experience and its impacts. You can do this quite objectively - see the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, comparison studies like my work on psychedelic experience and mystical experience, or Persinger's neurological experiment attempting to generate religious experience 'artificially'. Furthermore a large number of studies have been conducted on prayer and it efficacy or lack thereof. Furthermore, you can test it yourself on a personal subjective level.

4. Scriptures - The Bible -- yep, the Bible as cited. Yet the historic Christian tradition has been to draw on all four trends, and to attempt to understand God in the light of the whole picture. Sublation is a commonly used principle in interpreting the Bible - so the "God of Love and Grace" trumps the genocidal motifs of the earlier Scriptures in Christian theology. The Bible is a document detailing an evolution of religious thought - I think it is clear to any objective reader it sets out not one consistent theology, but an unfolding chronological series of insights and developments? If not, we would all be still practising the Ancient Jewish faith, and stoning folks?

I'm not sure if this clarifies at all, but I think it is important. Any thoughts? Different denominations place varying degrees of stress on these four - we could possibly even chart them! Still I hope it clarifies a little
Click to expand...

Pardon me for saying so, but that is typical of the usual evasive answer. The bible is either the infallible word of god or it isn't.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Do you think Christ rose from the dead?
Click to expand...

Yes. Lots of people rise from the dead though. That is not in itself very dramatic, though three days is as far as I know unheard of. Resurrection is more than that, more than resuscitation, miraculous as that seems to me (and praised be modern medicine and paramedics etc!). However the answer to your question is almost certainly yes. I believe Jesus returned from death, rose from the tomb, on the third day. Physically. Really. Not metaphotocally, but as in he was actually there.

So yep.

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
Yes. Lots of people rise from the dead though. That is not in itself very dramatic, though three days is as far as I know unheard of. Resurrection is more than that, more than resuscitation, miraculous as that seems to me (and praised be modern medicine and paramedics etc!). However the answer to your question is almost certainly yes. I believe Jesus returned from death, rose from the tomb, on the third day. Physically. Really. Not metaphotocally, but as in he was actually there.

So yep.
Click to expand...

Links? Proof? And what does ''metaphotocally'' mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom