Ask a theology student...

[CartesianFart]

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

Look up into the word 'Gnostic',it was a radical sect of Christianity led by many writers who claim to posses different and unique Gospels than was favored by Rome,until the oecumunical council declared them herectical.Coptic was their language.Father Valentius,interesting Gnostic bishop if you ask me.
http://search.com.com/reference/Gnostic_Gospels
Sometimes i wonder if Buddhism have reached Alexandria during their reign.Who knows.Maybe it is closely akin of what happen today such as Mormons going to Thailand.

I like the fact you are thinking Its quite refreshing.

Same to you.I guess i will have to contemplate more questions for the weekend,i've run out of gas.

 

[Cannae]

Look up into the word 'Gnostic',it was a radical sect of Christianity led by many writers who claim to posses different and unique Gospels than was favored by Rome,until the oecumunical council declared them herectical.Coptic was their language.

Coptics and Gnostics are the same thing?

Mormons going to Thailand.

Odd...

 

[CartesianFart]

Coptics and Gnostics are the same thing?
Well not exactly,i thought you were referring to the language of the Egyptians and i was thinking something else that i thought you were looking for.It is still an interesting look,instead of the Coptic religion.

Odd...

I know.Poor Thai's.

 

[mdwh]

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.

I don't see how this makes theology itself pointless?

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

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.

And religions are really there too.

Maybe Margim can explain more, but my understanding was that theology, as a University course at least, involved a lot about studying religions and theological ideas (as opposed to the more stereotypical idea of theology of someone trying to come up with actual answers about God). I didn't do theology myself, but looking over the course for Cambridge University for example mostly has things relating to people's beliefs, religions and history. Also, there are atheists or non-religious people who study theology.

 

[mdwh]

Pascal said:

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?

What about you? 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?

 

[Katheryn]

Look up into the word 'Gnostic',it was a radical sect of Christianity led by many writers who claim to posses different and unique Gospels than was favored by Rome,until the oecumunical council declared them herectical.Coptic was their language.Father Valentius,interesting Gnostic bishop if you ask me.
http://search.com.com/reference/Gnostic_Gospels
Sometimes i wonder if Buddhism have reached Alexandria during their reign.Who knows.Maybe it is closely akin of what happen today such as Mormons going to Thailand.


Same to you.I guess i will have to contemplate more questions for the weekend,i've run out of gas.

Oops, a mistake here.

A sect is not, by definition, heretical.

Gnosticism is a Christian heresy, in other words, it cannot be reconciled to it. There are beliefs in it that deny the basic tenets of Christianity. They are mutually exclusive, especially in their concept of who God is. One is an energy and the other is a person. Not reconcilable.

 

[Katheryn]

Margim, have you done any study on the Dominionism/Reconstructionist Theory? Have you found any proponents of this theory other than Gary North and his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony?

I have found a plethora of information about the theory, but have found very little, nearly nothing proposing the theory.

In some ways, it appears to be some kind of conspiracy theory to villify the neocons.

Do you have any research on this?

 

[Margim]

Margim, have you done any study on the Dominionism/Reconstructionist Theory? Have you found any proponents of this theory other than Gary North and his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony?

I have found a plethora of information about the theory, but have found very little, nearly nothing proposing the theory.

In some ways, it appears to be some kind of conspiracy theory to villify the neocons.

Do you have any research on this?

Nope, had nothing to do with it. As far as I'm aware, its a particularly unique phenomenon to the US, confined to a particularly nationalist kind of group who want to see a kind of Christian Sharia (Islamic Religious Law) imposed on their country.

 

[Margim]

Coptics and Gnostics are the same thing?

Nope.

Of a quick google search, this site might help...
http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Coptic is a term for ethnic Egyptains. It can also refer to the language used by them in the early centuries AD.

The historical coptic church is a branch of the orthodox church, primarily derived from ethnic Egyptians (not Arabs), and still exists today.

The connection with gnosticism is that several gnostic-christian texts were discovered written in coptic language... but Coptic Christianity and Gnosticism are definitely not the same thing.

 

[Katheryn]

Nope, had nothing to do with it. As far as I'm aware, its a particularly unique phenomenon to the US, confined to a particularly nationalist kind of group who want to see a kind of Christian Sharia (Islamic Religious Law) imposed on their country.

Yes, well it seems to be a myth.

Belief in such a thing would be precluded by belief in a 'Rapture' End-time theology. In the latest poll by Time Magazine 85% of Evangelical Christians subscribe to the End-time Rapture theories.

 

[Margim]

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

No, philosophy doesn't in fact claim much at all... it is working with theories and ideas, just like theology.

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.

I don't see how this posts addressess or invalidates my point in any way whatsoever. Regardless of who stated them, the quotes of Jesus in the bible go back long before the rennaisance, and show a human-interest bias.

I might not get taken seriously by you, but that's not particularly my concern here.

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'm not going to apologise for offering my opinion, especially in a thread specifically for the purpose of people asking me for my opinion .

And please don't twist my words... i stated understanding ourselves was part of the journey to knowing God, not that knowing God was necessary for understanding ourselves.

I understand people being disillusioned with religion/faith/spirituality, but I would have hoped for a little open mindedness... you seem determined to bracket me and many other Christians as something that we are not. Disagreement is fine, but you could at least be polite about it.

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.

I won't go defending everything the Catholic church has done...

But obviously you don't live in South America where priests have been executed for standing up for the poor, and you've never heard of the Franciscans, or several other missional orders focused on social justice.

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

So does the enlightenment.

 

[Margim]

Yes, well it seems to be a myth.

Belief in such a thing would be precluded by belief in a 'Rapture' End-time theology. In the latest poll by Time Magazine 85% of Evangelical Christians subscribe to the End-time Rapture theories.

I'd add to that by qualifying 'American Evangelical Christians'... again, end times obsession is largely a US phenomenon.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I don't see how this makes theology itself pointless?

And religions are really there too.

Maybe Margim can explain more, but my understanding was that theology, as a University course at least, involved a lot about studying religions and theological ideas (as opposed to the more stereotypical idea of theology of someone trying to come up with actual answers about God). I didn't do theology myself, but looking over the course for Cambridge University for example mostly has things relating to people's beliefs, religions and history. Also, there are atheists or non-religious people who study theology.

That sounds more like the history of religion.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I don't see how this posts addressess or invalidates my point in any way whatsoever. Regardless of who stated them, the quotes of Jesus in the bible go back long before the rennaisance, and show a human-interest bias.

Human-interest and humanism aren't the same thing. Humanism only came into existence during the Renaissance. You're misusing words. If humanism really originated with Christianity, there wouldn't have been a 1000 year pause before it appeared. To suggest that Christianity was overly concerned with life on earth, as opposed to the afterlife, is absurd. Jesus pointed out, quite often, that he was far more concerned with one's outcome in the afterlife than with earthly life. What it looks like to me is that theologists would like to believe that Jesus originated all the good ideas that exist now, and want to find evidence of that in the New Testament by reinterpreting that text to come up with that conclusion.

And please don't twist my words... i stated understanding ourselves was part of the journey to knowing God, not that knowing God was necessary for understanding ourselves.

This is double-talk. Either God is necessary to understand ourselves or he isn't.

I understand people being disillusioned with religion/faith/spirituality, but I would have hoped for a little open mindedness... you seem determined to bracket me and many other Christians as something that we are not. Disagreement is fine, but you could at least be polite about it.

Funny how you insist on my open-mindedness but have very little of your own.

I won't go defending everything the Catholic church has done...

But obviously you don't live in South America where priests have been executed for standing up for the poor, and you've never heard of the Franciscans, or several other missional orders focused on social justice.

And there were also many priests in Europe who rescued Jews from the Holocaust, while the Pope turned a blind eye to it and may have even condoned it. And Gregor Mendel founded genetics at a time when the Church withdrew from evolution. Why should I be impressed by isolated incidents of greatness from individuals when the organization is degenerate? While South American priests are rescuing the downtrodden, the Church is enabling child molesters. If you told me that priests in South America helped people because of a specific Church mandate, then I might be impressed. If you told me that Pope Pius XII instructed churches throughout Europe to resist the Nazis and offer sanctuary to Jews, then I would be impressed. Otherwise, you're telling me jack. It only impresses me that those very people help out the unfortunate. It does nothing for the church as a whole.

So does the enlightenment.

No idea what you're talking about.

 

[Margim]

Human-interest and humanism aren't the same thing. Humanism only came into existence during the Renaissance. You're misusing words. If humanism really originated with Christianity, there wouldn't have been a 1000 year pause before it appeared. To suggest that Christianity was overly concerned with life on earth, as opposed to the afterlife, is absurd. Jesus pointed out, quite often, that he was far more concerned with one's outcome in the afterlife than with earthly life. What it looks like to me is that theologists would like to believe that Jesus originated all the good ideas that exist now, and want to find evidence of that in the New Testament by reinterpreting that text to come up with that conclusion.

I'm not misusing words. Where have I said anything here about humanism?

And I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about Jesus, who was concerned holistically with this life and the next. Again, you are bracketing me and my faith into something that I/it is not...

This is double-talk. Either God is necessary to understand ourselves or he isn't.

Not double talk at all... I'm saying tomato, you are reading chocolate milkshake.

I don't get how you are reading it the way you are. I said 'human self-understanding' is required to 'know God', not 'God' is required for 'self-understanding'. You are twisting my sentence completely around, and then having a go at me for something I did not say at all.

Funny how you insist on my open-mindedness but have very little of your own.

Aside from the fact I've acknowledged the entire way through this thread that a) I could be wrong b) these are just my opinions and c) attempted to discuss the issues honestly without resorting to personal attacks?

I better get working on my sense of fair play.

And there were also many priests in Europe who rescued Jews from the Holocaust, while the Pope turned a blind eye to it and may have even condoned it. And Gregor Mendel founded genetics at a time when the Church withdrew from evolution. Why should I be impressed by isolated incidents of greatness from individuals when the organization is degenerate? While South American priests are rescuing the downtrodden, the Church is enabling child molesters. If you told me that priests in South America helped people because of a specific Church mandate, then I might be impressed. If you told me that Pope Pius XII instructed churches throughout Europe to resist the Nazis and offer sanctuary to Jews, then I would be impressed. Otherwise, you're telling me jack. It only impresses me that those very people help out the unfortunate. It does nothing for the church as a whole.

Well that's fair, condemn an entire faith system because of the actions of some of their members.

 

[nihilistic]

I don't see how this makes theology itself pointless?

And religions are really there too.

Maybe Margim can explain more, but my understanding was that theology, as a University course at least, involved a lot about studying religions and theological ideas (as opposed to the more stereotypical idea of theology of someone trying to come up with actual answers about God). I didn't do theology myself, but looking over the course for Cambridge University for example mostly has things relating to people's beliefs, religions and history. Also, there are atheists or non-religious people who study theology.

How about this? Name a concept, any concept that is borne out of theology alone. I will then smash it to pieces with my philosophy 101 stuff. Name somethign that theology offers that no one else does, and I'll demonstrate how it is pointless.

 

[Margim]

How about this? Name a concept, any concept that is borne out of theology alone. I will then smash it to pieces with my philosophy 101 stuff. Name somethign that theology offers that no one else does, and I'll demonstrate how it is pointless.

Just curious... couldn't you therefore theoretically do that with just about anything you like? Argue away as pointless, for example, existence?

I've no doubt through your philosophical paradigm you could do all sorts of things. In the end, however, aren't you operating from an assumption that the whole concept underlying your philosophy is sound?

 

[nihilistic]

I've no doubt through your philosophical paradigm you could do all sorts of things. In the end, however, aren't you operating from an assumption that the whole concept underlying your philosophy is sound?

I have a total of two operating assumptions:

1. Logic (and by extension mathematics). A systemic catalogue of a priori tautological truths that falsifies against the basis of rational thought itself. In other words, if math is incorrect, rational thought is pointless.

2. Empiricism. A notion that presupposes space-time is regular, that any event can be replicated anywhere else at any time provided that the conditions are replicated to a sufficient degree. Technically, my acceptance of empiricism is less belief and more a judgement that it is the best way to learn about the physical world. It can technically be forfeited if a better alternative comes along, but I don't think that is by any means probable.

Applying mathematics to empiricism yields science.

Just curious... couldn't you therefore theoretically do that with just about anything you like? Argue away as pointless, for example, existence?

Can you be more specific? What specific meaningful theory about existence are you claiming that is original and exclusive to theology? Describe it and I'll debunk it.

 

[Quasar1011]

Name a concept, any concept that is borne out of theology alone.

How about the concept that God created Hell out of Lucifer's own body?

 

[Shadylookin]

Because money isn't a priority for me. I guess I just have an interest in things that aren't necessarily governed by capitalism The idea of ministry - communicating, helping people work through issues, teaching, influencing, is something I feel I could contribute positively to the world through.

well if there is a god Mammon is certaintly one of them. for someone that views so many of his key beliefs as mere guesses how can you feel confident giving someone religious "truth" though preaching, teaching, or influencing? You could very well be leading them to an Islamic hell or a bad reincarnation.

I don't really know where anyone goes when they die. I leave that up to God, whom I believe is fair, just, and far more gracious that 'fire and brimstone' preachers give (him?) credit for.

but what if god is bad and sends all the good people to hell and all the bad people to heaven?