Ask a theology student...

[Elrohir]

Neither really fit for me. To be honest, neither term is really used or discussed much at college outside of church history classes.

What are your views on predestination/election, then? Does man have free will, or any input in whether he is saved by Christ?

 

[Margim]

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

Thanks! ... I think?

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

Yay! Self-loathing!

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

Actually, I think its quite the contrary... read what is in the bible... David, the youngest of a family of several children, Jacob (Israel) the grasping younger brother, Cain... read Matthew's genealogy of Jesus... prostitutes, gentile women, unmarried women, adulteresses, murderous kings. And then Jesus himself, the God who died unspectacularly on a cross... not exactly a role call of victors.

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.

I think you missed my point. God works through humanity, but also 'in spite' of humanity... If I may actually quote the bible without coming across as too preachy... Read Revelation 6 as a political document (read through the bizaar imagery to how first century people might have read it).

It states that God will 'allow' empire... the 'four horsemen' who rule, who conquer, whose oppressive activities result in death, in plague, in economic imbalance, in war... then. in v15: 'Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the fae of the one seated on the throne and the wrath of the Lamb'

Its quite politically radical... those who rule, whether it the 4th century councils, the later crusades, and George W. himself will all stand accountable for their actions... God might not interveen now, but will be asked to account for their own actions and the evils they have conducted on the poor, ruled over, and oppressed.

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?

I'm not sure I understand you... I'm not sure, wiht this point, that I want to

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.

Again, I tihnk you misread my post... I'm saying that in spite of human activity, God's truth will come through... the 'silver lining' behind the cloud, if you will. Thus, the bible needs to be engaged with, sifted through, discerned for its truth.

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

I don't disagree with you here. I think it’s a historical tragedy that ‘Christianity’ became institutionalized at all, and a disservice to the God it claims to represent that it has been involved in oppression, slavery, war, and hatred in various forms across the world throughout history.

That said, I don’t think the activities of some of its followers should be used to widely condemn the initial proponent of its ideas, or those who genuinely and honestly seek to heal the past, and move on into a more enlightened future… be they protestant, orthodox, or catholic.

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...

I assume you are either slightly tongue in cheek here… or from America’s deep south?

What are your views on predestination/election, then? Does man have free will, or any input in whether he is saved by Christ?

I personally don’t think its helpful to dwell on the unknowable, eschatological future… that belongs to God to worry about.

Our aim as Christians is to help as many people on earth encounter the loving, saving God in this world. No use purely preaching heaven to people when they are starving to death.

I will say that anyone who is 'saved' is saved through Christ... how that happens, I'm not sure.

 

[Arminius]

I assume you are either slightly tongue in cheek here… or from America’s deep south?

Both, although more than slightly either.

 

[Katheryn]

Hi, I'm a newbie, but I love talking about history, and theology.

What are your views on the Pope's message this week?

What are your views on 'Endtimes' do you believe we are in them?

 

[Margim]

Hi, I'm a newbie, but I love talking about history, and theology.

What are your views on the Pope's message this week?

What are your views on 'Endtimes' do you believe we are in them?

I actually feel sorry for the Pope... I as listening to a BBC report on the whole thing last night, and I think the whole thing is a messed up misunderstanding. In full context, the quote he used was part of a larger speech given to a bunch of German academics. It's been extracted from that context, and made to say something it wasn't. Unfortunate for all involved, imho.

As for the 'end times'... I personally think its pretty unhelpful (and rather demeaning of the biblical authors) to say that the words of Daniel, Revelation, or bits and pieces of Mark and the various Pauline epistles were speaking about events that had no relevance to their own lives.

At the same time, its not a good answer to say there is no meaning for today, either.

I'd suggest that they key elements of 'end times' theories... beasts, antichrist, persecution, oppression, war... are much more symptomatic of EVERY age, when there is one political power dominating others, removing freedoms, 'putting down' the little guys.

That means the governments of Babylon/Greece for Daniel, Rome for Revelation, through to both Islamists and the US today, as well as my own government in Australia.

No one knows the day or the hour at which Jesus might return.

The point of these various 'prophetic' texts is that when he does, governments are going to have a lot to answer for in terms of their policies and actions.

P.S. Welcome to CFC!!

 

[aneeshm]

Most of the "traditional" religions of the Americas, Africa, and Asia are usually described as polytheistic. You disagree because ... ?

They have become too influenced by monotheist ideas . The concept of the brotherhood of man was alien to these religions - their fundamental assumption was that everyone would act in his self-interest ( and their ideal was an enlightened self-interest ( which is far healthier and much more natural than an imposed brotherhood ) ) - but with contact with monotheist religions , these ideas infected the polytheist faiths . Animism/polytheism is , considering its original form , effectively dead .

 

[nihilistic]

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?

No idea what is "Christology". However, any introductory philosophy course would talk about Descartes's thought experiment, which leads to essentially skepticism. Utilitarianism, which negates much of the social aspect of most organized religions. The discussion of the Body-Mind Problem, (i.e. what are the characteristics of the interaction between the brain and the mind, or if the mind actually exists), where Dualism completely fails and gets dissected piece by piece by Philosophical Behaviorism, Functionalism, Eliminative Materialism ...

Ok, questions again:

1. What is this "Christology"?

2. I take it you believe in a 'god', more specifically the Christian 'God', any reasons? Does it stem from text, cultural acceptance, personal believe, or what? What of the qualities you ascribe to that entity, how do you know 'god' is a certain way? How do you justify your opinion that 'god' like somethign and hates another?

 

[The Last Conformist]

They have become too influenced by monotheist ideas . The concept of the brotherhood of man was alien to these religions - their fundamental assumption was that everyone would act in his self-interest ( and their ideal was an enlightened self-interest ( which is far healthier and much more natural than an imposed brotherhood ) ) - but with contact with monotheist religions , these ideas infected the polytheist faiths . Animism/polytheism is , considering its original form , effectively dead .

There's still groups out there essentially cut off from the rest of humanity. Don't try and tell me those Andaman islanders who threw spears at rescue crews after the tsunami, frex, have been infected by monotheistic ideas of the brotherhood of man.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The epistemology deserves some attention.
Margim, by which critera do you claim the existance of God, as well as his characterstics (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence...). You may get some sort of internal satisfaction from the idea of God (does he talk to you, for instance?), but by which critera can you say that your experiences are indeed describing God, and his characteristics?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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

More like a major branch of making-things-up-as-you-go-along.

It's no worse than getting a Classics major.

No, Classics is based on evidence of real things. There is evidence of Latin and Greek languages. There is evidence of history in the form of archeology and ancient writings, among other things. I don't have to imagine the Roman Empire because it was really there.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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 )

Nothing in the response indicates evidence to the contrary of what I said.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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...

I'm glad you said assumptions, because it doesn't go far beyond that. Is there some theological test to validate any assumptions?

Theology's ultimate goal is to improve the practice of humanity in the world...

According to you only. Some people think it's a better way to understand god, or serve god. Service to humanity is a concept of the Renaissance, not of theology originally. For most of history, humanity has been considered too fleeting and imperfect to require service and uplifting.

assuming the existance of God. How is it trying to catch up to philosophy?

Because it's often copying an earlier philosophy. Much of Christian theology, for example, is drawn directly from Classical philosophies, to the point where some authors dare to suggest that men such as Plato were Christians "in spirit."

 

[CartesianFart]

Yay! Self-loathing!

Yes,it is an enlightening disposition to have.I love the ascetic ideal principle,except the celibacy part.

Actually, I think its quite the contrary... read what is in the bible... David, the youngest of a family of several children, Jacob (Israel) the grasping younger brother, Cain... read Matthew's genealogy of Jesus... prostitutes, gentile women, unmarried women, adulteresses, murderous kings. And then Jesus himself, the God who died unspectacularly on a cross... not exactly a role call of victors.

I've read these,and frankly the story of the jews are far legendary than Jesus's apostles,which i think is either a lie or some kind of fruad.

I think you missed my point. God works through humanity, but also 'in spite' of humanity... If I may actually quote the bible without coming across as too preachy... Read Revelation 6 as a political document (read through the bizaar imagery to how first century people might have read it).

Read it.Not convinced though,it doesn't appeal to my sense of reason.

It states that God will 'allow' empire... the 'four horsemen' who rule, who conquer, whose oppressive activities result in death, in plague, in economic imbalance, in war... then. in v15: 'Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the fae of the one seated on the throne and the wrath of the Lamb'

zzzzzzzzzz

Its quite politically radical... those who rule, whether it the 4th century councils, the later crusades, and George W. himself will all stand accountable for their actions... God might not interveen now, but will be asked to account for their own actions and the evils they have conducted on the poor, ruled over, and oppressed.

Is there any evident on regarding the truth that the wicked will be punished?I guess i have to die and come back to life to find out, don't I ?

I'm not sure I understand you... I'm not sure, wiht this point, that I want to

Nevermind,it is wrong to make transvestite analogy.I thought i could stir a tumult toward you.I guess God is your mighty fortress against dragqueens.

Again, I tihnk you misread my post... I'm saying that in spite of human activity, God's truth will come through... the 'silver lining' behind the cloud, if you will. Thus, the bible needs to be engaged with, sifted through, discerned for its truth.

A metaphor.Just a metaphor that can't be refuted or discerned.

I don't disagree with you here. I think it’s a historical tragedy that ‘Christianity’ became institutionalized at all, and a disservice to the God it claims to represent that it has been involved in oppression, slavery, war, and hatred in various forms across the world throughout history.

That said, I don’t think the activities of some of its followers should be used to widely condemn the initial proponent of its ideas, or those who genuinely and honestly seek to heal the past, and move on into a more enlightened future… be they protestant, orthodox, or catholic.

I dont think it is a tragedy,but a farce is the word i like to say.I have to say that i am quite admonished but also in awe of how it happen.

Here is a brief example of a true statesman(one of the 5 causes) such as Constantine according to the famous historian,Gibbon,on regarding what was the reason why Christianity triumphed over other religions and the Roman Emperor motives on choosing so:"The union and discipline of the Christian republic,which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire."

How did it happen,like any organization that rises to power by usurpation?Propagandas'!Especially miracles and their supposed austere morals.The former,having to do with the possession of a Sacred Book(which wasn't an innovation at all,since the Jews and other ancients have done this) that give the masses a sense of history,creation of world, and a God that is credited of having made wonders.The latter,i suppose,that this was merely a good public relations to empower the bishops by bribing the poor and destitute by way of almsgivings.Trust me,these poor mobs will do anything for the bishops will.A good political leverage nonetheless,by making friends with starving lunatics.

This is the reason why Christianity is a sham.It is not because it is a religion of reason,but as a means for rulers to take advantage of its zeal.What is zeal?A sense of someone else's purpose,not one's own,but a prefabricated lie that somehow Constantine(gotta admire this guy wisdom to achieve power and stability by way of reform) found an opportunity to take a organized single bloc and purchase it by favoring them.Whoever dislike these 'Reformed Judiastic Cult' ,was unorganized and politically ineffective that was weak against this new pressure group.This is why Christianity have the monopoly of our traditional zeal.

I apologize my belicose mood and shrewd outlook.

 

[Margim]

1. What is this "Christology"?

Its a Christian thing... the study of Christ, the nature/purpose of him. Relevance, meaning, did Jesus have to be Christ etc. However, the particular class I was doing was looking at Christology in light of post modernity.

2. I take it you believe in a 'god', more specifically the Christian 'God', any reasons? Does it stem from text, cultural acceptance, personal believe, or what? What of the qualities you ascribe to that entity, how do you know 'god' is a certain way? How do you justify your opinion that 'god' like somethign and hates another?

Started from culture, that encouraged me to read a text... thought about it, was unsure about it, accepted it, still question it, nevertheless engage with it and live with it - thus, its a matter of faith.

As stated earlier in this thread, I see the bible as a guide/pointer towards God, the centre of which we find in the person of Jesus. What I centraly conclude about God lies in the person of Jesus and what seems to make sense in light of what we know about him, and then demands the rest of the bible be reread and understood from there... thus, I can conclude that God likes the poor and hates abuse of power. God likes relationship and hates divide. God likes compassion and hates injustice.

 

[aneeshm]

There's still groups out there essentially cut off from the rest of humanity. Don't try and tell me those Andaman islanders who threw spears at rescue crews after the tsunami, frex, have been infected by monotheistic ideas of the brotherhood of man.

Correct . But those people do not come from a complete civilisation , nor can they aspire to the status of one ( unless some wierd rich guy decided to give them all his money and force their civilisational development by subsidising their culture , helping them deveolp their own script and written language , and preserving their religion and building an orthodoxy around it ) .

 

[Margim]

Margim, by which critera do you claim the existance of God, as well as his characterstics (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence...). You may get some sort of internal satisfaction from the idea of God (does he talk to you, for instance?), but by which critera can you say that your experiences are indeed describing God, and his characteristics?

I think the first part of your question is answered in my last post... love/compassion/justice etc are represented in the figure of Jesus. The rest would be speculation on the nature of an infinite being (ie, the omni's) to which I, at least, am not privy.

As far as experience goes, I don't know whether you'd call it 'talking' but rather promptings in certain instances, and those instances leading towards remarkably suitable resolutions. I'm quite aware some other people would simply call this 'intuition' and 'coincidence'... but I can only talk out of my own experience.

The clearest example for me personally was the night I determined to follow a theological path towards some sort of ministry (whatever that may be). My parents have both been ministers in the past. They were going through a rough process at a church. I was in my second last year of highschool, and was trying to decide what to do with my life... seeing the situation my parents were in, and wanting to be different, I was thinking IT or archaeology or anything other than Christian ministry.

After sitting in bed and reflecting on it, I find myself in a debate with some aspect of my consciousness that I should head that way. I 'argued' against it for about 10 mins, at which point I lost, ended up in tears, decided I'd go into theology, and haven't looked back since.

Now call it what you will (I'm sure a few people will come up with some interesting terms)... I'm not particularly concerned... but I believe that was God 'speaking' in a fairly clear cut manner to me.

 

[Margim]

Okay, last post before bed... I'll get to the rest tomorrow/monday.

I'm glad you said assumptions, because it doesn't go far beyond that. Is there some theological test to validate any assumptions?

Not objectively. Engagement with God/Spirituality is experiential. I don't think I've claimed otherwise.

There are various models to evaluate theologies, but they largely are theoretical in themselves. Much like philosophy.

According to you only. Some people think it's a better way to understand god, or serve god. Service to humanity is a concept of the Renaissance, not of theology originally. For most of history, humanity has been considered too fleeting and imperfect to require service and uplifting.

I disagree. If nothing else, get a Jesus seminar red letter bible and read what they would suggest Jesus said. You'll find plenty about serving humanity there.

As far as the purpose of theology, theology, is only relevant if it ultimately improves a) like philosophy,the human condition and b) uniquely to theology, understanding of God. Human understanding of God can only be improved through better understanding of ourselves.

I agree the concept of service to humanity was prominent in the Renaissance, and certainly showed the medieval church up for the fact, but it by no means can claim a monopoly on the idea.

Because it's often copying an earlier philosophy. Much of Christian theology, for example, is drawn directly from Classical philosophies, to the point where some authors dare to suggest that men such as Plato were Christians "in spirit."

Going by that argument, philosophy is trying to catch up with itself. I'd say more like 'running alongside' philosophy, borrowing from it, but not exhaustively. Every element of human thought must be drawn from a preceding idea...

 

[Margim]

I've read these,and frankly the story of the jews are far legendary than Jesus's apostles,which i think is either a lie or some kind of fruad.

I agree. I'm refering to the stories as theological references... the overall point is that Jesus is identified with the powerless, regardless of the historicity of the narratives.

Is there any evident on regarding the truth that the wicked will be punished?I guess i have to die and come back to life to find out, don't I ?

Again, stop literalising the issue. I've repeatedly stated I'm reading from a theological perspective. The point being made is that the systems will be held accountable, not the specific nature/accuracy of the punishment.

Nevermind,it is wrong to make transvestite analogy.I thought i could stir a tumult toward you.I guess God is your mighty fortress against dragqueens.

...all this without even asking my views on the matter.

A metaphor.Just a metaphor that can't be refuted or discerned.

Yeah, gee, guess Enlightenment logic does have its limitations after all.

I dont think it is a tragedy,but a farce is the word i like to say.I have to say that i am quite admonished but also in awe of how it happen.

Here is a brief example of a true statesman(one of the 5 causes) such as Constantine according to the famous historian,Gibbon,on regarding what was the reason why Christianity triumphed over other religions and the Roman Emperor motives on choosing so:"The union and discipline of the Christian republic,which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire."

How did it happen,like any organization that rises to power by usurpation?Propagandas'!Especially miracles and their supposed austere morals.The former,having to do with the possession of a Sacred Book(which wasn't an innovation at all,since the Jews and other ancients have done this) that give the masses a sense of history,creation of world, and a God that is credited of having made wonders.The latter,i suppose,that this was merely a good public relations to empower the bishops by bribing the poor and destitute by way of almsgivings.Trust me,these poor mobs will do anything for the bishops will.A good political leverage nonetheless,by making friends with starving lunatics.

This is the reason why Christianity is a sham.It is not because it is a religion of reason,but as a means for rulers to take advantage of its zeal.What is zeal?A sense of someone else's purpose,not one's own,but a prefabricated lie that somehow Constantine(gotta admire this guy wisdom to achieve power and stability by way of reform) found an opportunity to take a organized single bloc and purchase it by favoring them.Whoever dislike these 'Reformed Judiastic Cult' ,was unorganized and politically ineffective that was weak against this new pressure group.This is why Christianity have the monopoly of our traditional zeal.

I'd have issues with what you just described too.

I apologize my belicose mood and shrewd outlook.

Its alright. You're going to hell anyway (kidding)

I like the fact you are thinking Its quite refreshing.

 

[Cannae]

Say do you know anything about coptic Chrisianty? I know it's real but I could'nt find anthing on it on wikipedia.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Not objectively. Engagement with God/Spirituality is experiential. I don't think I've claimed otherwise.

Testimony will get you a prayer and a prescription for Enzyte.

There are various models to evaluate theologies, but they largely are theoretical in themselves. Much like philosophy.

Philosophy doesn't claim special knowledge of non-existent gods.

I disagree. If nothing else, get a Jesus seminar red letter bible and read what they would suggest Jesus said. You'll find plenty about serving humanity there.

The Jesus Seminar is an interpretation of Christianity in the 20th century, which includes, among other things, the suggestion that Jesus may not even have existed as claimed in the Gospels. I doubt that this conclusion would've been prevalent between centuries 1 and 19. If you want to read in humanity into an ancient text that had no interest in it, go right ahead. But overinterpretation, and reinterpretation, won't get you taken seriously.

As far as the purpose of theology, theology, is only relevant if it ultimately improves a) like philosophy,the human condition and b) uniquely to theology, understanding of God. Human understanding of God can only be improved through better understanding of ourselves.

Your opinion, again. I have not noticed theology to have done anything to improve the human condition in the thousands of years of its existence. If anything, it has been used to degrade the human condition and justify all sorts of atrocity. As far as understanding of God, what insult is it to all those who do not believe, to suggest that they cannot understand themselves as a result!

I agree the concept of service to humanity was prominent in the Renaissance, and certainly showed the medieval church up for the fact, but it by no means can claim a monopoly on the idea.

Have you noticed that the Catholic Church's influence has decreased over the centuries? Whereas once the Church had both great spiritual and temporal power, it is now reduced to Vatican City and paying court settlements for childhood sexual abuse by priests. Obviously, its reputation has diminished considerably, so I don't see it in service to humanity much then or even now.

Going by that argument, philosophy is trying to catch up with itself. I'd say more like 'running alongside' philosophy, borrowing from it, but not exhaustively. Every element of human thought must be drawn from a preceding idea...

I agree, but religion seems to have a habit of pretending to be the originator of everything.