Here's your chance: Stump the Christian Chump

[doppelganger]

Which is why we shouldn't build a religious edifice.

But without a religious edifice, where would we display our trophies?

 

[Koldo]

But without a religious edifice, where would we display our trophies?

I will act like some christians i have seen to check if it is fun.I will quote a passage of the bible, completely out of context, to reply to your post, and claim that my understanding of it is perfect:

[1 Samuel 2:3 (New International Version, ©2011)

3 “Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the LORD is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.]

This passage CLEARLY tells you can't go around showing your trophies. Okay, problem solved.

....

Okay, it was not as fun as i expected. :sad4:

 

[Vendetta]

I don't think that the concept of Jesus being divine was fully developed before the Gospels were written. This dogma was in its earliest stage at this time, and Christians would fight over it for another 300+ years.

So we have in the Gospels a sort of clumsy relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Then how do we explain the main christian position on considering Jesus as both God and Son of God?

 

[Jose Fly]

This kind of question is truly beyond me - at least on the cosmological level. But it occurs to me that people like Dawkins can understand the universe through mathematical equations (etc), which is the highest form of human reasoning. The universe is ordered enough that we can understand it through mathematics, and that's as efficient as it gets.

Right. It terms of the actual functioning/working of the universe, it does work, albeit in a manner that hardly makes me think a god who loves H. sapiens above all else is behind it. The universe as a whole seems entirely indifferent to our existence.

But the quite messy history of Israel in the Bible - I think - is from their destruction and captivity in Babylon. While there, they had to recoincile "why it happened" with their faith in one God. The root of the problem was they didn't kill everyone that they needed to during the conquest and therefore worshipped false gods which angered God and put them in a world of crap.

I agree...EDIT: Sort of. When I first read this, I thought you were saying that the Biblical version of the history of the earth isn't necessarily accurate, and is just a manifestation of ancient Hebrews' trials and tribulations. After reading it again, I'm not so sure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then how do we explain the main christian position on considering Jesus as both God and Son of God?

I figgered it out!
Here's the analogy:
I am God, living in the vast "real" world, attuned to things unseen by you miserable posters in a backwater forum.
Revoltingest is Jesus, sent to represent me in this small & limited virtual world....a veil of tears, as it were.
Both entities are me, yet Revoltingest is separate in a sense.
There is no holy ghost.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then how do we explain the main christian position on considering Jesus as both God and Son of God?

Simple. I was something that took hundreds of years to develop. As Chrisitanity solidified in the West, Roman Catholic understandings of the Trinity became prominent in the areas that they controlled - mainly, Europe. About 800 years+ later, the Reformation happened and the Catholic version of the Trinity was retained by the Reformers and all the churches that came from it, and this spread with the fragmentation of the Reformation groups.

In the East, there was a slightly different understanding of the Trinity that remains to this day in Greek and Russian Othodoxy. I'm not sure about the Chinese, Amenian, and Coptic churches, but I suspect that they would be more like the Greek than the Catholic.

In any case, there was little agreement on what the Trinity was in early Christianity, and this comes to bear clearly in the accounts of the church councils, writings, and letters of the early church.

 

[Vendetta]

Simple. I was something that took hundreds of years to develop. As Chrisitanity solidified in the West, Roman Catholic understandings of the Trinity became prominent in the areas that they controlled - mainly, Europe. About 800 years+ later, the Reformation happened and the Catholic version of the Trinity was retained by the Reformers and all the churches that came from it, and this spread with the fragmentation of the Reformation groups.

In the East, there was a slightly different understanding of the Trinity that remains to this day in Greek and Russian Othodoxy. I'm not sure about the Chinese, Amenian, and Coptic churches, but I suspect that they would be more like the Greek than the Catholic.

In any case, there was little agreement on what the Trinity was in early Christianity, and this comes to bear clearly in the accounts of the church councils, writings, and letters of the early church.

So what is your position on Jesus?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what is your position on Jesus?

1) There is a Jesus of history - a poor Jew who was crucified for upsetting the Romans. Possibly the son of a Roman soldier, had followers who believed that he died and rose again.

2) There is a Christ of faith - the Jesus that is encased in myth // all the miracles, theological teachings that bear his authority, the pattern that inspired Paul to serve as an apostle

By faith we realize the Christ of faith, actualizing the myth.

 

[Ilisrum]

Possibly the son of a Roman soldier

Hmm. It's intriguing to see somebody recognize this. Even though it's been vehemently rejected by modern scholarship, especially Christian scholarship, the tradition appears early enough in the sources that it can't be shrugged off entirely as pure polemic. At least we know that by the time the Gospel of John was written, the claims of Jesus' illegitimacy were already being espoused. The story of the virgin conception may have been invented to cover up the scandal, but this seems iffy IMO.

 

[outhouse]

Hmm. It's intriguing to see somebody recognize this. Even though it's been vehemently rejected by modern scholarship, especially Christian scholarship, the tradition appears early enough in the sources that it can't be shrugged off entirely as pure polemic. At least we know that by the time the Gospel of John was written, the claims of Jesus' illegitimacy were already being espoused. The story of the virgin conception may have been invented to cover up the scandal, but this seems iffy IMO.

I believe this as well

"iffy at best"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The "riches" describe the depth of "goodness and forbearance and longsuffering."

So the "riches" are "goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering."

I don't see that. Say the riches "of" God were Gold and silver. The same way we might say that the riches "of" Mr. peters are land, money, and children. The way I see the use of the word "of" would need that the riches of God's goodness, forbearance and longsuffering be enumerated. why do you see it differently?

 

[doppelganger]

I don't see that. Say the riches "of" God were Gold and silver. The same way we might say that the riches "of" Mr. peters are land, money, and children. The way I see the use of the word "of" would need that the riches of God's goodness, forbearance and longsuffering be enumerated. why do you see it differently?

In context, the "riches" of "God's goodness, forbearance and longsuffering" are that you will not be judged by "God" for doing any of the things listed at the end of the prior "chapter" in this letter.

 

[Tathagata]

Why did Yahweh inflict pain and suffering upon innocent babies and animals in his global hydro-genocide?

Why does Yahweh like the "sweet savor" of animal sacrifices?


.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why did Yahweh inflict pain and suffering upon innocent babies and animals in his global hydro-genocide?

Why does Yahweh like the "sweet savor" of animal sacrifices?

First, the flood story is a myth. So, no.

Second, the "sweet savor" of animal sacrifice is a metaphor for the approval of the practice. I don't see how this question is relevant.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In context, the "riches" of "God's goodness, forbearance and longsuffering" are that you will not be judged by "God" for doing any of the things listed at the end of the prior "chapter" in this letter.

:foryou:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In context, the "riches" of "God's goodness, forbearance and longsuffering" are that you will not be judged by "God" for doing any of the things listed at the end of the prior "chapter" in this letter.

Actually, not being judged for or sins comes from the redemption of Christ and not His goodness forbearance and longsuffering. These things lead us to Christ. In that sense I could see His riches being salvation.

 

[Tathagata]

First, the flood story is a myth. So, no.

Do you have a hermaneutical justification for this assertion or are you just picking and choosing?

Second, the "sweet savor" of animal sacrifice is a metaphor for the approval of the practice. I don't see how this question is relevant.

But it says "the burnt OFFERING was a sweet savor unto the Lord."

They offered the animal sacrifice to God, he tasted it, and said it's a sweet savor.

Even if it mere approval of the practice, what purpose do animal sacrifices serve other than pointless suffering upon the animal?

 

[outhouse]

Do you have a hermaneutical justification for this assertion or are you just picking and choosing?

what part of? there was never a global flood dont you understand.

no need to get into detail about a known myth

Even if it mere approval of the practice, what purpose do animal sacrifices serve other than pointless suffering upon the animal?

again more myth.


previous religions had these exact myths involved.

 

[doppelganger]

Actually, not being judged for or sins comes from the redemption of Christ and not His goodness forbearance and longsuffering. These things lead us to Christ. In that sense I could see His riches being salvation.

That's not what the text is talking about. That's an insertion of your own favorite theology into the passage we are talking about.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what part of? there was never a global flood dont you understand.

What he said.