Ask a theology student...

[El_Machinae]

Oh, ex-believers can have that symptom, certainly. I can imagine the lack of feedback as being a decent reason to give up faith. But many who keep their faith seem to get feedback (or claim to receive feedback).

 

[nihilistic]

Have you ever taken philosophy 101? What would you say to the claim that philosophy 101 essentially invalidates (not proven wrong, but demonstrates the pointlessness of) your whole major?

Are you going to an acredited college/university?

What kind of classes do you actually take to satisfy that particular major? Name a few.

 

[CartesianFart]

I still maintain orthodox beliefs about Christ and God... but my understanding of tradition and scripture hang a little looser.

I've been curious of orthodoxy of the Catholic faith during the first 4 centuries of christianity before the conversion of Constantine for some time now and i would like to ask you some question of Arianism and the Gnostic heresey before the "Council of Nicea."

1.Why does it require the ecclesiastics to vote on how to interpret scriptures in a certain way and exclude others as heresey?Is the democratic vote(even if it only rest on the clergy,not the laymen and secular rulers) in order to produce orthodoxy a divine one or just political?

2.If answer to political motivation=Then how do we really suppose to believe in scriptures when other gospels was condemn as heresey based on a geopolitical decision on strengthening the authority of Rome?

 

[El_Machinae]

Where does the absolute certainty of the spiritual status of the zygote come from?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Margim, what is your opinion on the nature of the relationship between God's power and his "goodness"? Why should one obey God: because he is good, or because he is powerful?

 

[Margim]

I've only ever met one other person who claimed to believe in Christ (as God) and who didn't feel 'feedback' (that is presumed to be God or the Holy Spirit) while praying.

This mindset is the most intriguing to me

Different traditions have different emphasis on emotions, feelings, etc. I guess I’m a little less charismatic than the folks you’ve encountered 

Have you ever taken philosophy 101? What would you say to the claim that philosophy 101 essentially invalidates (not proven wrong, but demonstrates the pointlessness of) your whole major?

Nope, the only philosophy subjects I’ve taken were Islamic philosophy... unless you count Post-Modern Christology in the vein of philosophy. What claim, particularly, invalidates my major?

Are you going to an accredited college/university?

Yes. My double degree is worked between two institutions… Arts (History major) at Melbourne University, Theology (Biblical Studies Major) at the Melbourne College of Divinity, which receives its accreditation through Melbourne University.

What kind of classes do you actually take to satisfy that particular major? Name a few.

Biblical studies (because I didn’t want to pick a particular ‘Testament’ to focus on) can involve any number of subjects focusing particularly on Biblical theology and exegesis. Currently, one subject I’m doing is a ‘Narrative Analysis of the Gospel of Mark’. Others include ‘Socio-Political Context of the Gospels’, various subjects that focus particularly on a given book of the bible (ie Samuel, Revelation, Sermon on the Mount (Matthew), and survey subjects that cover a theme spread over a few books (ie Salvation in the Hebrew Bible, Theologies of Love in the Bible etc). Other theology subjects include systematics (Christology, Ecclesiology) and practical theology (pastoral care, missiology, and ‘spirituality’)

I've been curious of orthodoxy of the Catholic faith during the first 4 centuries of christianity before the conversion of Constantine for some time now and i would like to ask you some question of Arianism and the Gnostic heresey before the "Council of Nicea."

I’d probably be under qualified here, but I’ll have a crack

1.Why does it require the ecclesiastics to vote on how to interpret scriptures in a certain way and exclude others as heresey?Is the democratic vote(even if it only rest on the clergy,not the laymen and secular rulers) in order to produce orthodoxy a divine one or just political?

On a micro-level, in terms of the direct events influencing their compilation, I’m going to swing largely towards political. I believe there was certain negotiations taking place between the eastern and western church on certain books.

However, that is not to say that the ‘finished product’ (although the canon shouldn’t really be considered closed) cannot be regarded as authoritative for the church. God can work in spite of history, with what we have to offer, no matter how unhelpful its past or compilation.

Politically influenced, it ain’t ‘perfect’, but if God wanted us to have a clearer revelation of himself, I believe he’d make it so.

2.If answer to political motivation=Then how do we really suppose to believe in scriptures when other gospels was condemn as heresey based on a geopolitical decision on strengthening the authority of Rome?

In spite of the politics and human hands involved, what we have is what we have. The key, I believe, is to see the scriptures as a pointer towards God, not to seem them as god themselves. The problem with scripture comes when we see it as more than it is… inspired, yes, useful for teaching and learning about God, yes, infallible, no. Thus, God equipped us with brains, to be used where they may. 

Where does the absolute certainty of the spiritual status of the zygote come from?

Members of right-to-lifers would point to verses (or half verses) nicely removed from context like this;

"Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5).

I don’t actually know the biblical authors say anything about it, to be honest. Their understanding of the reproductive system was far from authoritative.

 

[Margim]

Margim, what is your opinion on the nature of the relationship between God's power and his "goodness"? Why should one obey God: because he is good, or because he is powerful?

A completely unsatisfying answer is 'neither... one should obey God because God is God'.

Rather than just obey, though, I'd say engage with. Listen to. Think about. Grapple with. Learn from. Consider. Challenge. Be challenged by.

God is more than just some unapproachable entity... ordering us like a king. God aims to be known, to be heard, and to hear... both good and powerful. We are invited to God, not conscripted. At least, that's what I think on the matter

 

[Aphex_Twin]

A completely unsatisfying answer is 'neither... one should obey God because God is God'.

I may be reading this wrong. But "obey God because he is God" sounds more like an appeal to authority.

God is more than just some unapproachable entity... ordering us like a king. God aims to be known, to be heard, and to hear... both good and powerful. We are invited to God, not conscripted. At least, that's what I think on the matter

How are your feelings in regards to non-believers deserving eternal punishment? Also, who is a greater sinner in God's eyes: a murderer who believes in Him, or a non-believer who goes by the non-aggression principle?

Finally, what is your attitude towards the Bible, and more specifically, verses like THESE?

I take it Nihilistic will touch upon the epistemological considerations of God's existance.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

To turn your question around a little bit-- Does it pain you that you could be in for a very bad time if your beliefs are wrong? Do you have the courage of your convictions to not have a small twinge of doubt when the night is dark or danger looms?

When I get some religious beliefs, I'll let you know.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'm aware of the possibility, but I don't believe it is.

And, even if God does not exist (which is still open for debate, last time I looked), theology nevertheless teaches us about ourselves, encourages to grapple with difficult questions, etc. Often, its not much different to philosophy, except for the assumption of a particular manifestation of God.

God's existence doesn't even enter into it. There are countless religions around the world, each with their own theologies. There's no way for you to know which one of them is correct, if any.

My observation of theology is that it is always playing catch-up with philosophy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Like I said, it's a sub-branch of philosophy, but it makes up for it by slapping some history in.

It's no worse than getting a Classics major.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

How does it feel to have people acting like the worst sort of teenagers and trying to score cheap points by asking derisive questions that are loaded, rhetorical in nature and generally biased instead of asking questions appropriate for a theology student?

p Yes, I'm perfectly aware of what I just did )

 

[Margim]

I may be reading this wrong. But "obey God because he is God" sounds more like an appeal to authority.

Obey was the language of the initial question. Which is why, in the next sentence, I suggested broadening the idea beyond just 'obey'. My focus was more on the nature of what makes God significant... not just goodness or power, but the very fact that God is God... undefinable, intangible, not classifiable... but God. Obedience fits in there somewhere, but that kind of obedience is needed only when one actually recognises the authority in the first place...

How are your feelings in regards to non-believers deserving eternal punishment? Also, who is a greater sinner in God's eyes: a murderer who believes in Him, or a non-believer who goes by the non-aggression principle?

I've mentioned my views on eternal punishment a few times in this thread already... but to save you looking them up, its basically this...

The ability to save or not lies in the hands of God, who I believe is fundamentally loving and gracious. The references to hell in the bible are a disparate and inconsistent range of texts, and the question of what hell actually is, whether it is a punishment, a state of being one reverts to, and who actually goes there, are left wide open.

As for your second question...

I'm not sure that non-belief, by itself, represents a sin. Non-agression is certainly more closely following Christ's teachings than a murderer, not matter who he believes in... Matt 21:28-31 probably fits the spirit well. Who is actually doing the will of God?

Finally, what is your attitude towards the Bible, and more specifically, verses like THESE?

The bible is useful as a revelation of God, and humanity's interaction therewith. I go for the historical/cultural/literary approach more than the historicist/literalist approach... does that answer your question?

I take it Nihilistic will touch upon the epistemological considerations of God's existance.

Undoubtedly

 

[Margim]

God's existence doesn't even enter into it. There are countless religions around the world, each with their own theologies. There's no way for you to know which one of them is correct, if any.

My observation of theology is that it is always playing catch-up with philosophy.

That's interesting, because I don't see any competition between the two. They work on a different set of assumptions. They use a similar set of tools, but theology is broader than just a set of questions and theories...

Theology's ultimate goal is to improve the practice of humanity in the world, assuming the existance of God. How is it trying to catch up to philosophy?

 

[Margim]

How does it feel to have people acting like the worst sort of teenagers and trying to score cheap points by asking derisive questions that are loaded, rhetorical in nature and generally biased instead of asking questions appropriate for a theology student?

p Yes, I'm perfectly aware of what I just did )

Actually (forgive the tripple post), I'm quite enjoying it . These are quite generous and open spirited discussions, in contrast to some of the ones I've had on my own church's discussion forum!!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Rather than just obey, though, I'd say engage with. Listen to. Think about. Grapple with. Learn from. Consider. Challenge. Be challenged by.

How do you grapple with God if you don't get "feedback" when praying?

 

[Margim]

How do you grapple with God if you don't get "feedback" when praying?

Well, I never said I get no feedback whatsoever. 'Praying' in the conventional sense just don't do it for me...(also, feedback wasn't really defined... I certainly don't get electric zaps or anything)

Contemplation, sometimes. Certainly my studies are a great way of wrestling things out. Instinct, thought, all the things that make us human, become communication with God, if you're open to it...

I live life with a sense of awareness of God. It's seemed to work so far

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Yes, Margim, these answer my inquiries

 

[CartesianFart]

I’d probably be under qualified here, but I’ll have a crack

It seems you can carry yourself quite fine,of course you are still a biased christian.

I guess i am a biased egoist who like to be self-loathing of my vain solipsistical torments periodically.

On a micro-level, in terms of the direct events influencing their compilation, I’m going to swing largely towards political. I believe there was certain negotiations taking place between the eastern and western church on certain books.

God loves his political animals.Especially the victor who claim that it was God's will.

However, that is not to say that the ‘finished product’ (although the canon shouldn’t really be considered closed) cannot be regarded as authoritative for the church. God can work in spite of history, with what we have to offer, no matter how unhelpful its past or compilation.

It is strange that a theologian such as you in this great 21st century habitually attribute 'God' as the author of good things as you are saying that the politics of man's behavior is a good thing.It is as you are willing to say that GOD loves the winner,even if it is against the principle of good.

Politically influenced, it ain’t ‘perfect’, but if God wanted us to have a clearer revelation of himself, I believe he’d make it so.

How can God,who is absent except of the ideal,can reveal himself as the case when Ru-Paul (a celebrity drag-queen)reveal his manly characteristics on a talk-show?

It is strange that you say that on account of your belief that God wills the truth by revealing to us by an political indoctrination.Hence the word 'dogma' of a given institution of any given creed.

In spite of the politics and human hands involved, what we have is what we have. The key, I believe, is to see the scriptures as a pointer towards God, not to seem them as god themselves. The problem with scripture comes when we see it as more than it is… inspired, yes, useful for teaching and learning about God, yes, infallible, no. Thus, God equipped us with brains, to be used where they may. 

Is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force.-Machiavelli

I am convinced that the only reason that christianity have melded into our western culture is the very fact that Constantine(with the help of the army) have adopted it for the reason of reform and the sense of an universal religious body of clerics administering order amongst the masses.These new administrators act as an divine guardian on some sense of a natural law already ordained by unseen eye=God.

This is the legacy of christianity.Fear

 

[Arminius]

I'm confused. I thought you were a Protestant, but you don't believe in the divinity of the Bible? That's like being Catholic and not believing the divinity of the church...