Ask A Protestant Christian II

Also, have you ever thought of the probability that this is all a scam? Jesus and his disciples could easily have staged all of this and have good reason to do so - to be worshipped.

He would have to have been extremely lucky. Remember in the Old Testament how many magic-workers there were around Israel? None of them are even remembered today, so for Jesus to have been as successful as he was if he was just the same would be an amazing fluke.
 
If god is so entirely beyond human comprehension, then why worship him at all? You make him sound like an impersonal force of nature, rather than any sort of personal entity with which a meaningful relationship may be established.

All I am trying to say is when He shows himself as personnal, that does not define Him. God still shows Himself today, most people (not all) are too self-centered to notice. We live in a materialistic age. We demand materialistic proof. Faith does not fit very well into that paradigm. God was personal and He did show Himself very much as the History of the Jews was being written down. Each and every action had a purpose. One can interpret those any way they choose, but Plotinus said we will never have the same mindset that they did 3000 years ago. You have to take God today the way He is today. I am not saying that God does things differently, but with knowledge and reasoning and even science our relationship with Him has changed.

However you cannot take science we have to day and explain things that happened 6000 years ago. You can form hypothesis and theories. Now if in the next 6000 years we see that scientifically things have not varied, then we can be more dogmatic that they did not the previous 6000 years.

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from stating my motivations or actions. I do not choose to ignore it, I reasoned the evidence presented is less conclusive than your take on it. If you argue evidence to back up Jesus' existence I'd say the evidence is pretty good. If you argue evidence for Jesus rising up from the dead, I'd say it's pretty poor.

I too don't feel the need to argue with you about this, but I do object to you speaking on behalf of me.
They are not the same thing. Facts are the observed phenomena, a Scientific Theory is the explanation of those phenomena or it's characteristics. Example, Fact: if you drop an apple it falls to the ground. Theory: if you drop it from height x, it will take y seconds to reach the ground.

I do get the picture, but a lot of people still say a theory is a fact. I still say that a proven theory is a fact. There are a lot of theories that we "think" are proven, but I highly doubt they are. God gave us His version of history as fact, but a lot of people have no faith or trust in the Bible and to them it is just a theory, because they cannot prove that it is a fact.

...and if observations or experiments make the hypotheses/theory invalid, the scientific method adjusts or discard the hypotheses and start all over again until what is actually theorized and what is observed/measured, adds up.

The religious community (or parts of it) seem unable to discard aspects of their beliefs no matter how bizarre recent and well documented scientific findings, disprove them.

The Bible is considered to be truth full in every aspect, yes? That absolute is carried over when speaking of the interpretation . If you are not willing to question the book itself, how do you feel about questioning the interpretation of the book?

If God changes with the whims of man, He would not be GOD. He would be man made. Science cannot change the definition of God each generation. For God to remain the same, it seems to me the sooner Truth is set down, the harder it is to corrupt it. The argument is not that man is not capable of adding errors. The argument is is GOD capable of keeping the errors out. I say He is. Interpretations are different than what was actually written. Higher critism tried to re-write the Bible to make sense out of it. They say scribe a and scribe b combined with scribe c had to happen, because that is the only way to make sense out of it. There were scribes in pre-kingdom Israel up until the babylonian exile who kept perfect records on scrolls that were handed down from Moses. You can ask most Jewish scholars today and they will tell you that much. I say the OT cannot be questioned. It was the law, the prophets, and the history of the Jews. You can either accept it or refuse it, but you cannot change it's meaning just like you would never change any other document from antiquity. Loss of archaeological proof is not proof. Finding new archaeology is what is proof.

If you try to reconcile anything with Christianity from the OT you will be misguided. The only thing from the OT is original sin, (Adam) and the atonement on the cross. (second Adam). The apostles did try to use examples from the OT to teach the Jews how Jesus teachings apply to them. Trying to apply the OT to anyone else but a Jew is futile. Gentiles are not Jews in thought nor ever will be. One can still convert to judaism today and live under the OT, but that does not make them a Christian. It makes them a Jew.

Following the NT does not even make you a Christian. It is a guide, used to teach new disciples after one accepts Christ and is willing to follow Him. It is hardly a history book except for Acts. The Gospels are not a history, but a synopsis of Jesus' ministry.
 
I do get the picture, but a lot of people still say a theory is a fact. I still say that a proven theory is a fact. There are a lot of theories that we "think" are proven, but I highly doubt they are. God gave us His version of history as fact, but a lot of people have no faith or trust in the Bible and to them it is just a theory, because they cannot prove that it is a fact.
I'll have to leave you with the unsatisfying comment that the word "Theory" in Scientific Theory is not as broadly defined as the word "theory" as it's used in everyday English. I encourage you to look up the term "Scientific Theory". As per request I'm going to have to leave it at that.
 
I'll have to leave you with the unsatisfying comment that the word "Theory" in Scientific Theory is not as broadly defined as the word "theory" as it's used in everyday English. I encourage you to look up the term "Scientific Theory". As per request I'm going to have to leave it at that.

Thank You.

Spoiler :
Is this what you are talking about?

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a hypothesis, a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. However, In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A theory is hypothesis corroborated by observation of facts which makes testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory.


I can accept the "fact" that in scientific theory "fact" is not even used. It is overwhelming evidence that cannot be "replaced" by another theory. If my interpretation does not butcher that too much. I think I am understanding that facts are the grace of the unknown. Nothing is taken for granted, but science keeps opening up new areas of study, and knowledge? I suppose this should have it's own thread, and already has several. So in order to not turn this into a debate and respect both sides, I will have to leave it at that also. I do not assume anything and hope that questions will be answered properly. I do appreciate any back and forth though, since there is more than one way to "phrase" something. I would rather be understood though, than just, these are my opinions. I take this privilege to answer, seriously and not just a soap box. I want to answer any question truthfully and coherently so people who are curious do get the full context of what a "christian" is.
 
Well, can you verify that Julius Caesar lived?
As much as we can verify that Ronald Reagan lived, yes, and if you're going to go that far down the road of crypto-solipsism, then I don't think that we're actually able to discuss this.


Nonsense... then according to that, the CCCP was a bunch of Orthodox.
Not really, because I'm referring to the actual political, social and cultural alignment of the NSDAP, and not simply the religious practices common in the country in which it operated; the NSDAP explicitly aligned itself with the Christian establishment, while the CCCP's stance on religion ranged from passive disapproval to militant hostility, so the fact that they both emerged in Christian countries is obviously not the defining factor here.
Previously, I made an analogy with the British Conservative Party, which is understood as being traditionally aligned with Protestantism (specifically, Anglicanism, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Presbyterianism), but I would not make the same analogy in regards to the Labour Party, which, despite existing in the same country, has no such historical orientation; the distinction, despite your accusations, is entirely noted.

Just utter rubbish. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Stop linking Nazism and Christianity, because THAT is offensive, and completely against the reality of what Christianity teaches.
I honestly couldn't give a damn what you find "offensive". What I am giving here are factual descriptions of the historical practices and orientation of the NSDAP; if you have a problem with those practices and orientation, take it up with them, not me.

Which he may well be. The Hindus describe God as what you can loosely say is 'whatever that thing out there which created the world and watches over it'; we can only see what he's like through what he's done, and he's had the sense to keep it fairly vague. Hence all the different religions! If it was obvious how He worked, would we need all those?
Oh, certainly, there are theologies that describe such a deity. I'm just saying that such an understanding of God seems to be at odds with the religious beliefs and practices which Timtofly appears to adhere to.

All I am trying to say is when He shows himself as personnal, that does not define Him. God still shows Himself today, most people (not all) are too self-centered to notice. We live in a materialistic age. We demand materialistic proof. Faith does not fit very well into that paradigm. God was personal and He did show Himself very much as the History of the Jews was being written down. Each and every action had a purpose. One can interpret those any way they choose, but Plotinus said we will never have the same mindset that they did 3000 years ago. You have to take God today the way He is today. I am not saying that God does things differently, but with knowledge and reasoning and even science our relationship with Him has changed.
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. There's very little apparent structure to this paragraph, just a series of disparate assertions.

However you cannot take science we have to day and explain things that happened 6000 years ago. You can form hypothesis and theories.
What is the distinction between the two, in your understanding?

Now if in the next 6000 years we see that scientifically things have not varied, then we can be more dogmatic that they did not the previous 6000 years.
What do you mean by this? What is "variation", in this context?
 
Spoiler :
As much as we can verify that Ronald Reagan lived, yes, and if you're going to go that far down the road of crypto-solipsism, then I don't think that we're actually able to discuss this.

Not really, because I'm referring to the actual political, social and cultural alignment of the NSDAP, and not simply the religious practices common in the country in which it operated; the NSDAP explicitly aligned itself with the Christian establishment, while the CCCP's stance on religion ranged from passive disapproval to militant hostility, so the fact that they both emerged in Christian countries is obviously not the defining factor here.
Previously, I made an analogy with the British Conservative Party, which is understood as being traditionally aligned with Protestantism (specifically, Anglicanism, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Presbyterianism), but I would not make the same analogy in regards to the Labour Party, which, despite existing in the same country, has no such historical orientation; the distinction, despite your accusations, is entirely noted.

I honestly couldn't give a damn what you find "offensive". What I am giving here are factual descriptions of the historical practices and orientation of the NSDAP; if you have a problem with those practices and orientation, take it up with them, not me.

Oh, certainly, there are theologies that describe such a deity. I'm just saying that such an understanding of God seems to be at odds with the religious beliefs and practices which Timtofly appears to adhere to.


I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. There's very little apparent structure to this paragraph, just a series of disparate assertions.

Are we materialistic today? I am not talking about equality, but the ability to be. 3000 years ago it was survival not materialism. IMO it would make more sense to be "more" personnal 3000 years ago. Today we have more knowledge and less "mysticism". Faith is still required, but our cognizance is different. Some say, "I want God to come down and provide me with proof." God already did, but we refuse to acknowledge it.

What is the distinction between the two, in your understanding?
What do you mean by this? What is "variation", in this context?

Science from now on will compile observable data. That cannot be said of the past. No one has kept records of what happened. If one uses the Bible one tends to YEC. Whatever happened, happened quickly and variation happened rapidly or not at all. Give us another 6000 and the pattern is either going to change again or stay the same. We are at the mercy of time, but it seems to one today that things are progressing faster today than they did 100 years ago. However time and observation is all science has to go on practically.
 
If one uses the Bible as the source of all knowledge, past and present, of course you'll tend towards YEC. That shouldn't be even in question. Technology is certainly progressing faster than at any time in the past, but that does not mean the laws of physics were selectively altered at some point in the past, merely to conform with an old book's recounting of the Judaeo-Christian creation story.
 
Are we materialistic today? I am not talking about equality, but the ability to be. 3000 years ago it was survival not materialism. IMO it would make more sense to be "more" personnal 3000 years ago. Today we have more knowledge and less "mysticism". Faith is still required, but our cognizance is different. Some say, "I want God to come down and provide me with proof." God already did, but we refuse to acknowledge it.
But, as has been observed, this "refusal" doesn't take the form of mere obstinacy, but of the rejection of the offered evidence as insufficient.

Science from now on will compile observable data. That cannot be said of the past. No one has kept records of what happened. If one uses the Bible one tends to YEC. Whatever happened, happened quickly and variation happened rapidly or not at all. Give us another 6000 and the pattern is either going to change again or stay the same. We are at the mercy of time, but it seems to one today that things are progressing faster today than they did 100 years ago. However time and observation is all science has to go on practically.
Are you suggesting that is possible for contemporary scientists to compile data regarding past events? Even though they've been doing it for over a century? :confused:
 
But, as has been observed, this "refusal" doesn't take the form of mere obstinacy, but of the rejection of the offered evidence as insufficient.

I agree. I also think that religion gets in the way. Religion and science will never "explain" God, not even combined with logic. Logic is used to help one see through both to get to the truth. But the truth has to come from within a person, not necessarily from their experiences and environment. I am not talking about new age or mysticism either. The choice is personnal and the "aligning" of internal thought, and I can only offer the truth that I know and trust that knowledge will become self-evident. If I may quote Jesus, "one comes as a child". I think that external factors can add up over a life time so much so that information "clutters" and makes hard a simple truth. That "one truth" can lead to knowledge and a foundation can be established. I think that "one truth" is in every one, but can be burried, and in some cases very deeply.

Are you suggesting that is possible for contemporary scientists to compile data regarding past events? Even though they've been doing it for over a century? :confused:

No, I am not saying the past data is not significant, and archeology is very important in reconstructing data. All I am trying to say is one cannot use missing data. Yes I realize that there is a great amount of evidence and it may even get greater. Only time will tell.
 
I have to say that not all Protestants have all these misconceptions of science, but sadly it seems to be very common :(


If you try to reconcile anything with Christianity from the OT you will be misguided. The only thing from the OT is original sin, (Adam) and the atonement on the cross. (second Adam). The apostles did try to use examples from the OT to teach the Jews how Jesus teachings apply to them. Trying to apply the OT to anyone else but a Jew is futile. Gentiles are not Jews in thought nor ever will be. One can still convert to judaism today and live under the OT, but that does not make them a Christian. It makes them a Jew.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about the OT. Most of the teachings found in the NT can be traced back to their origins the the OT. Saying that trying to reconcile the OT with Christianity is misguided implies that God somehow changed between OT and NT. (Of course you can make the argument consistent by saying that the NT cannot be reconciled with (current) Christianity either, but I don't think that you want to make this point.)
 
I have to say that not all Protestants have all these misconceptions of science, but sadly it seems to be very common :(
Spoken like someone who doesn't know much about the OT. Most of the teachings found in the NT can be traced back to their origins the the OT. Saying that trying to reconcile the OT with Christianity is misguided implies that God somehow changed between OT and NT. (Of course you can make the argument consistent by saying that the NT cannot be reconciled with (current) Christianity either, but I don't think that you want to make this point.)

Can you please explain why as a Protestant, you would want to live under judaism?

Can you explain why God changed?

Can you explain why Christianity today is different from the original church?

Would you say that the Bible can explain science?

Thank You.
 
Moderator Action: This is not a "Troll the Christians" thread. Ask your questions and wait for an answer. If you want to discuss a topic related to Protestantism, then start a thread on it. this is not a debate thread, but an ask and answer thread. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
I'll take a stab at those. God didn't change, merely people's perceptions of him did. Obviously Christianity is different today because people are different today. No, the Bible cannot explain modern science any more than a physics textbook could explain religion.
 
Can you please explain why as a Protestant, you would want to live under judaism?
Having grew up Southern Baptist and over the past couple of years, very deliberately read the entire OT, I would say there is a lot in the OT that wasn't changed by the NT, but that many Protestants ignored. Some of this concepts were better picked up by Islam, though there is some bad faith action going on there to bypass the more challenging items (Sharia Finance comes to mind). I would say that living under Judaism is not the right way of going about it, but understanding the messages that are repeated over and over in the OT would be beneficial to many Protestants.
Can you explain why God changed?
I do not think that God has changed, just those writing scripture have put in their perception of God and those perceptions were not uniform.
Can you explain why Christianity today is different from the original church?
For one thing, the early church seemed to tolerate gay marriage:


Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual or same sex marriage is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple who enjoyed a celebrated gay marriage. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their gay marriage.

serge.jpg



Professor John Boswell's
Startling Discovery

The very idea of a Christian gay marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian gay marriage did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century). That certainly sounds like gay marriage.

The ceremonies Boswell describes
had all the contemporary symbols
of a marriage.

1.A community gathered in a church
2.A blessing of the couple before the altar
3.Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages
4.The participation of a priest
5.The taking of the Eucharist
6.A wedding banquet afterwards

All of these are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th to early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Dr. Boswell lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents.

One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnization of Same Sex Union," having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to

"vouchsafe unto these Thy servants grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union," uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Ancient marriage records can be found in libraries across Europe. Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy,

"taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together," according to a contemporary report.

Gay people have partnered for thousands of years

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in The Irish Times newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians concerning their attitude toward homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

Would you say that the Bible can explain science?
That is not its purpose and I don't think it can.

Thank You.
You're welcome
 
What does your faith teach you about identifying non-human persons, and the ethics thereof?

Non-human persons know more about God than modern man. They are pre-programmed to serve God. Mankind in his finite wisdom, is selfish and self-serving even when trying to serve others. Ethically, we should learn from them.
 
Who exactly are non-human persons?
 
Non-human persons know more about God than modern man. They are pre-programmed to serve God. Mankind in his finite wisdom, is selfish and self-serving even when trying to serve others. Ethically, we should learn from them.

But that is what sets us apart from machines. We are imperfect, flawed etc. but I'm fine with that, it's better than being a robot without feelings or anything. Right?
 
Who exactly are non-human persons?
I would've assumed that he was referring to either highly intelligent non-human creatures such as chimpanzees, or to hypothetical sapient alien species, but apparently Timtofly interpreted it as referring to angels, or something? :confused:
 
I just answer questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom