How powerful is Satan?

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes they are. Otherwise theyre just mucking around with the theology to suit their own ends.

So, then, if I understand correctly, you are saying that belief in Original Sin (specifically, that unbaptized children go to Hell) is a necessary condition of being Christian? In other words, that doctrine is what defines someone as a Christian?

On what basis do you make this claim? What, for example, are we to make of those who called themselves Christian before this belief was first promulgated? Were there no Christians before St. Augustine?

 

[frob2900]

On what basis do you make this claim? What, for example, are we to make of those who called themselves Christian before this belief was first promulgated? Were there no Christians before St. Augustine?

Because everything that's happened in Christianity since the time of Jesus is solely the work of man. Therefore the more you change the theology, the less pure it becomes.

I realize that augustine of hippo is a 4th century figure, but that puts him much closer to the source. Since original sin was a solid tenet of christianity up until the 14th century, I can't see as to how arbitrary changes (for the purpose of PR) to a 1000 year old doctrine can in any way be construed as true.

Furthermore, the protestant reformation occured even later, with a number of changes to the theology. All this mucking around with theology just undermines christianity (which stood on extremely feeble grounds to start with) even more.

You just can't change christian theology to suit your own needs. If I were to do a Joseph Smith and invent my own book of the bible with a bunch of new theological concepts, would you accept it? If not, why? Since you seem to have no problem accepting other arbitrary changes.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Because everything that's happened in Christianity since the time of Jesus is solely the work of man. Therefore the more you change the theology, the less pure it becomes.

But theology is dynamic, no one is bound to accept what was said before. I am not even arguing about whether it is true or not.

I realize that augustine of hippo is a 4th century figure, but that puts him much closer to the source. Since original sin was a solid tenet of christianity up until the 14th century, I can't see as to how arbitrary changes (for the purpose of PR) to a 1000 year old doctrine can in any way be construed as true.

Why would it have to be about PR? If people think a doctrine is wrong, they can choose not to accept it. And what of those around Augustine's time who disagreed with him? Is a Christian compelled to accept them as well? Who made him the final judge of who is a Christian?

Furthermore, the protestant reformation occured even later, with a number of changes to the theology. All this mucking around with theology just undermines christianity (which stood on extremely feeble grounds to start with) even more.

I am not Protestant and not beholden to what they think. And as Christianity is not a single entity, the fact that some Christians disagree with some others on some things doesn't matter.

You just can't change christian theology to suit your own needs.

Why not? Who appointed you the final arbiter of who is or isn't Christian?

If I were to do a Joseph Smith and invent my own book of the bible with a bunch of new theological concepts, would you accept it? If not, why? Since you seem to have no problem accepting other arbitrary changes.

Ah, at last it comes out. To answer your question, I would accept them as Christian, yes. And I don't see the doctrines I accept as arbitrary at all, and for the purposes of this debate whether you do is irrelevant.

Now, Christianity may or may not be true and you are certainly free to reject it, but your claims that any one particular doctrine, especially a latecomer like Origianl Sin, is a prerequisite to calling oneself Christian, is manifestly absurd.

 

[frob2900]

But theology is dynamic, no one is bound to accept what was said before. I am not even arguing about whether it is true or not.

So theology is not the word of God? What's the point of having theology then? What if its the word of the Devil?

Why would it have to be about PR? If people think a doctrine is wrong, they can choose not to accept it. And what of those around Augustine's time who disagreed with him? Is a Christian compelled to accept them as well? Who made him the final judge of who is a Christian?

It's obviously PR. Christians are very careful about what battles they choose.

We'll who is the final judge? God? How do I get in touch with him? Everytime I pray Satan whispers something in my ear.

I am not Protestant and not beholden to what they think. And as Christianity is not a single entity, the fact that some Christians disagree with some others on some things doesn't matter.

So there is a fair chance that most christians will go to hell? Since only a fraction will have guessed the correct word of god.

Why not? Who appointed you the final arbiter of who is or isn't Christian?

You misunderstand me. God is the final arbiter, and following his word is a prerequisite. Now if all Christians have different beliefs, obviously most of them aren't following the word of god. This is so obvious to me.

Ah, at last it comes out.

What comes out?

To answer your question, I would accept them as Christian, yes. And I don't see the doctrines I accept as arbitrary at all, and for the purposes of this debate whether you do is irrelevant.

Swell. So pretty much everyone is a christian in your eyes, as long as they say "i'm a christian".

Now, Christianity may or may not be true and you are certainly free to reject it, but your claims that any one particular doctrine, especially a latecomer like Origianl Sin, is a prerequisite to calling oneself Christian, is manifestly absurd.

But see my above responses. Obviously, the only true doctrines are those of the OT/Jesus. It goes to reason that the later the addition of a doctrine, the more deviant it is from the word of god.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So theology is not the word of God? What's the point of having theology then? What if its the word of the Devil?

Theology has several meanings; in fact it may refer to what humans think about religion.

It's obviously PR. Christians are very careful about what battles they choose.

No, people are free not to accept a doctrine if they think it is incorrect. They may prove to be wrong, but it doesn't mean they cease to be Christian. Just because you insist that the only reason they don't follow a doctrine is PR, doesn't mean it is. After all, Christianity did most of its expansion at the hands of people who believed in Original Sin, so it isn't even necessary for PR.

Well who is the final judge? God? How do I get in touch with him?

That is hard to determine - who decides who is and isn't Christian? Well, if self-identification isn't enough, I don't see why St. Augustine should be.

Everytime I pray Satan whispers something in my ear.

Can't help you there, sorry.

So there is a fair chance that most christians will go to hell? Since only a fraction will have guessed the correct word of god.

I don't believe that correctly guessing all the right doctrine is necessary for salvation. Many Christians agree with me.

You misunderstand me. God is the final arbiter, and following his word is a prerequisite.

Why do you say that? You don't believe it.

Now if all Christians have different beliefs, obviously most of them aren't following the word of god. This is so obvious to me.

"The Word of God" can mean a lot of things. A lot of Christians seem to think it means specifically an understanding of who Christ is, and that a lot of the rest is not essential.

What comes out?

Well, you don't seem to understand what Joseph Smith was claiming to do. But maybe I am being unfair; since when was understanding of a topic necessary to criticize it?

Swell. So pretty much everyone is a christian in your eyes, as long as they say "i'm a christian".

Well, if belief that Jesus is Christ (hence the name "Christian") isn't enough, I don't see why "belief in Origianl Sin as frob2900 understands it" is much better.

But see my above responses. Obviously, the only true doctrines are those of the OT/Jesus.

Why is this obvious?

It goes to reason that the later the addition of a doctrine, the more deviant it is from the word of god.

Again, not necessarily.

And this gets to the heart of the issue. You don't believe any Christian doctrine, so why are you trying to say some are better than others? Just so you can feel more superior in your condemnation? The fact is, some people who call themselves Christian don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. Since you don't even believe Christianity is true, why get worked up over it?

 

[frob2900]

Since you don't even believe Christianity is true, why get worked up over it?

Because a theory that can change on the spur of the moment isn't much of a theory. It annoys me from a consistency point-of-view, since it's impossible to argue with christians if they change their beliefs at the drop of a hat. It's like wrestling oiled pigs.

Decide what you believe, then start criticising secular concepts or atheists.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Because a theory that can change on the spur of the moment isn't much of a theory. It annoys me from a consistency point-of-view, since it's impossible to argue with christians if they change their beliefs at the drop of a hat. It's like wrestling oiled pigs.

You don't get it. "Christians" aren't one single entity. if there are two christians who believe two different things, it doesn't mean they can't make up their minds, it means they disagree with each other.

Decide what you believe, then start criticising secular concepts or atheists.

There are atheists who disagree with each other. Well, make up your minds before you criticize anyone else. After all, if you do not agree entirely with someone who has some similar beliefs, obviously you can't make up your mind. If you can't think alike, don't think at all.

 

[frob2900]

You don't get it. "Christians" aren't one single entity. if there are two christians who believe two different things, it doesn't mean they can't make up their minds, it means they disagree with each other.

Well, then they are nothing. A doctrine that bases itself on absolutes (i.e. "you go to hell if you violate the word of god after you last honestly repented") but has no internal cohesion has just spent all it's capital, since it's basic tenets are meaningless.

Especially if different sects start forgiving each other as "diplomatic bonuses".

There are atheists who disagree with each other. Well, make up your minds before you criticize anyone else. After all, if you do not agree entirely with someone who has some similar beliefs, obviously you can't make up your mind. If you can't think alike, don't think at all.

How do atheists disagree on the topic of "there is no god"?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, then they are nothing.

Why? Your understanding of what Christianity is, as I said, strikes me as ill-informed.

A doctrine that bases itself on absolutes (i.e. "you go to hell if you violate the word of god after you last honestly repented") but has no internal cohesion has just spent all it's capital, since it's basic tenets are meaningless.

That may be true; why you think that is the fundamental tenet of Christianity quite frankly puzzles me. What you described there may be true of some sects of Christianity but isn't true of Christianity as a whole.

Especially if different sects start forgiving each other as "diplomatic bonuses".

Different sects can believe what they want. if I say that I don't believe that all non-Mormons are going to Hell, that isn't just me being diplomatic and you are greatly mistaken in thinking it is.

How do atheists disagree on the topic of "there is no god"?

They don't. But they disagree on other things. Thus according to your logic none of them can make up their minds.

 

[frob2900]

Why? Your understanding of what Christianity is, as I said, strikes me as ill-informed.

How can it be? You just said christianity is whatever you want it to be.

They don't. But they disagree on other things. Thus according to your logic none of them can make up their minds.

But christians disagree on the concept of belief in god. How is this hard for you to understand? Obviously I wouldn't criticize christians on the issue of disagreeing whether McDonalds or Burger King is a better junk food joint.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But christians disagree on the concept of belief in god. How is this hard for you to understand?

In what way do Christians disagree on the concept of belief in God? They may disagree on what the implications of said belief are, but what do you mean by the phrase in the first place? And why should that disqualify them from calling themselves Christian? Given that (I gather from all your comments) you are not even Christian, why on earth do you care who calls themselves Christian?

 

[frob2900]

In what way do Christians disagree on the concept of belief in God? They may disagree on what the implications of said belief are, but what do you mean by the phrase in the first place? And why should that disqualify them from calling themselves Christian? Given that (I gather from all your comments) you are not even Christian, why on earth do you care who calls themselves Christian?

I'm not an astronomer or a geologist either, but I'd get annoyed if a huge false theory cropped up in those branches too. Especially if the people believing it all defined it differently and made enormous amounts of noise.

Do you agree that christianity gives set rules for living your life?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm not an astronomer or a geologist either, but I'd get annoyed if a huge false theory cropped up in those branches too. Especially if the people believing it all defined it differently and made enormous amounts of noise.

The scientific method gives some baseline for what is or isn't a false theory.

But that isn't even what you are claiming. What you would be saying is that to be a true biologist, you have to accept phrenology, and that to do otherwise is "rejecting it because it's inconvenient" or "PR" or some such nonsense. You haven;t been trying to tell me that Original Sin is an incorrect doctrine - I agree with you. You have been saying that Christians are required to accept it.

Do you agree that christianity gives set rules for living your life?

Yes.

 

[frob2900]

The scientific method gives some baseline for what is or isn't a false theory.

If I do you the favor of not applying scientific ideas and concepts to belief, don't use them for your arguments. Scientifically studying christianity would almost immediately show that it makes as much sense as believing in leprechauns. Especially once the researchers noticed that there is probably more consensus in leprechaun superstitions.

You have been saying that Christians are required to accept it.

Let's put it this way: what evidence do you have that Original Sin is a false doctrine?

Yes.

Where can I find those rules?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If I do you the favor of not applying scientific ideas and concepts into belief, don't use them for your arguments. Scientifically studying christianity would almost immediately show that it makes as much sense as believing in leprechauns. Especially once the researchers noticed that there is probably more consensus in leprechaun superstitions.

Ah, clever. Except that of course the scientific method isn't used that way. I was using science as an analogy, as you had done first, not claiming that theology is the same thing.

Christianity can be scientifically studied in the sense that it can be examined historically or sociologically, but most scientists would not say that the scientific method gives them any really good way to examine its truth claims. All they would say is that great claims require great evidence and that in the absence of such evidence the rational thing to do would be not to believe these claims. I would not disagree with them.

Let's put it this way: what evidence do you have that Original Sin is a false doctrine?

What does it matter? I don't believe it. For the sake of this debate that's all that matters, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyways.

 

[El_Machinae]

Frob: we label Christians as those people who self-identify as Christians. The Bible is too vague to set up a cohesive picture, and so people tack on additional concepts as they see fit. But if they're still calling themselves Christian, then we might as well let them. We're certainly not qualified to determine which sect (babies have sin or not) is 'more correct' or even more in tune what the founders intended

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Because a theory that can change on the spur of the moment isn't much of a theory. It annoys me from a consistency point-of-view, since it's impossible to argue with christians if they change their beliefs at the drop of a hat. It's like wrestling oiled pigs.

Decide what you believe, then start criticising secular concepts or atheists.

Oh the irony, after I've read a thousand posts from a hundred posters of "calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color" and indefinitely repeated insistence that atheism is not an ideology, atheists are not a group, that one cannot generalize about atheism, etc, etc.

I hereby forbid the atheists from criticizing Christianity until they decide what they believe as a group!

 

[frob2900]

Frob: we label Christians as those people who self-identify as Christians. The Bible is too vague to set up a cohesive picture, and so people tack on additional concepts as they see fit. But if they're still calling themselves Christian, then we might as well let them. We're certainly not qualified to determine which sect (babies have sin or not) is 'more correct' or even more in tune what the founders intended

But why on earth do they do this? If there's no point to it except as an arbitrarily chosen "feel-good hobby" that varies from person to person, why do they pretend that there exists a serious debate?

Oh the irony, after I've read a thousand posts from a hundred posters of "calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color" and indefinitely repeated insistence that atheism is not an ideology, atheists are not a group, that one cannot generalize about atheism, etc, etc.

Uh, right. Sorry, that made no sense whatsoever to me.

I hereby forbid the atheists from criticizing Christianity until they decide what they believe as a group!

"There is no god"?

What does it matter? I don't believe it. For the sake of this debate that's all that matters, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you anyways.

Fine. Perhaps it's a fact of life that many people will have completely arbitrary cosmologies that they proclaim as truth. Still doesn't make it any less disturbing to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But why on earth do they do this? If there's no point to it except as an arbitrarily chosen "feel-good hobby" that varies from person to person, why do they pretend that there exists a serious debate?

You seem angry that people who believe different things nonetheless use the same umbrella term to describe themselves? They do this in politics too, you know.

Fine. Perhaps it's a fact of life that many people will have completely arbitrary cosmologies that they proclaim as truth. Still doesn't make it any less disturbing to me.

It doesn't matter if you find it disturbing; that doesn't leave you in a position to dictate what these arbitrary beliefs may or may not be.

 

[warpus]

Erik Mesoy What we believe doesn't bind is as a group - what we don't believe does.

Christianity is a bit harder to define, because it isn't a coherent grouping of people.