Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Constantinopolis]

And now, there are a couple of posts from the previous CDT that I would like to respond to:

And in the ancient world, it was actually rather common to find people believing that Christ was only God and not human at all. The humanity of Christ was far more controversial than the divinity of Christ.

I vaguely remember someone in this thread (It might have been you) stating that even the Arians believed that Jesus was divine in a certain sense. Did I misunderstand something? If not, what exactly did the Arians believe? What is the difference between, say, Arianism & Socinianism?

Arians believed that Jesus was a created being, but the very first being that God ever created, before the angels, before humans, and in fact before the universe. They believed that Jesus was not God, but that He was "of similar substance" to God. In other words, Arians believed that Jesus was a special heavenly being, in a category of His own, below God but above anything else - above humans and above angels.

So the Arians placed Jesus a lot closer to God than to man, while denying both the idea that He is (fully) divine and the idea that He is human.

Might I suggest that we declare these dogmatic assertions that Christian doctrine is inherently "hateful" to transgenders one of those topics that risks dominating the thread?

But it is hateful. If God really is willing to have one thrown into a lake of fire simply for gender-nonconformity then he is inherently transphobic. If God is willing to have gay couples thrown into a lake of fire simply for not conforming to traditional sex than he is inherently homophobic. Otherwise, he's not transphobic or homophobic.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that God directly told you to murder your only child in cold blood. We can agree that this is worse than being homophobic and transphobic, right? So what should you do in that case? Curse God and disobey Him?

Well, guess what, the Bible gives this precise scenario as an example of how far we should go in obeying God. God commanded Abraham to murder his son Isaac, and Abraham was willing to do it, before God stopped him at the last moment. But the point is that Abraham was willing to do it. God was testing him, and Abraham passed the test by showing that he was willing to murder Isaac.

The Bible explicitly says that we should obey God in all things, even if they seem absurd or wrong or don't make any sense to us. Because the Creator of the Universe knows better than you. If He directly tells you to murder your child, then He surely must have a good reason, even if He doesn't explain that reason to you, and you should listen to Him.

It is arrogant and prideful - and therefore sinful - to imagine that you know better than God.

So I can never understand this attitude that some liberal Christians have, where they say "I could never follow a God who commanded ________". Actually, you should follow God no matter what He commands. That's kinda the whole point of major sections of the Bible.

Now, of course, you can legitimately question if God does or does not command homosexual people to abstain from having sex. You can believe that He doesn't. But if you believe that He does, then the reaction "well I guess I can't follow God then" is absurd. The Creator of the Universe should be followed no matter what He commands. Because He's an omniscient being. He literally knows all the possible consequences of every possible action that you could take. Do you honestly imagine that you can judge what is right and what is wrong better than an omniscient being who can see all possible futures?

As I've said in previous discussions around the same topic: If there existed an extremely intelligent and near-omniscient super-being (not even God, necessarily, but something like an advanced alien civilization or a supreme AI), whom I trusted to have good intentions, then I would follow the commands of this being without question, because it knows better than me.

I do not second-guess the decisions of super-minds.

[Luminesa]

Screenshotting that golden moment where the Orthodox not only out number the Latins but ALL denominations! Muahahahaha. The Orthodox Conspiracy strengthens.

Catholics still win every time!

[Grand Calvert]

Does anyone here believe in extraterrestrial sentient life? And if there were other sentient beings out there, should a Christian try to convert them to Christianity?

[Pachenstein]

Does anyone here believe in extraterrestrial sentient life? And if there were other sentient beings out there, should a Christian try to convert them to Christianity?

I think the existence of sentient extraterrestrials is a moot point at the moment but I would go with the Pope's answer on the issue of evangelisation if we were to make contact.

[The Alexanderians]

Does anyone here believe in extraterrestrial sentient life? And if there were other sentient beings out there, should a Christian try to convert them to Christianity?

The Catholic Church has actually covered this topic. The Vatican Astronomer has out right said it would be placing limitations on God if we were to deny the possibility and that God may even have different plans for them. With this in mind they might not even be compatible with Christianity.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-alien-life-will-be-discovered-but-will-not-prove-or-disprove-god-126813/

[Czechanada]

And now, there are a couple of posts from the previous CDT that I would like to respond to:

I vaguely remember someone in this thread (It might have been you) stating that even the Arians believed that Jesus was divine in a certain sense. Did I misunderstand something? If not, what exactly did the Arians believe? What is the difference between, say, Arianism & Socinianism?

Arians believed that Jesus was a created being, but the very first being that God ever created, before the angels, before humans, and in fact before the universe. They believed that Jesus was not God, but that He was "of similar substance" to God. In other words, Arians believed that Jesus was a special heavenly being, in a category of His own, below God but above anything else - above humans and above angels.

So the Arians placed Jesus a lot closer to God than to man, while denying both the idea that He is (fully) divine and the idea that He is human.

But it is hateful. If God really is willing to have one thrown into a lake of fire simply for gender-nonconformity then he is inherently transphobic. If God is willing to have gay couples thrown into a lake of fire simply for not conforming to traditional sex than he is inherently homophobic. Otherwise, he's not transphobic or homophobic.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that God directly told you to murder your only child in cold blood. We can agree that this is worse than being homophobic and transphobic, right? So what should you do in that case? Curse God and disobey Him?

Well, guess what, the Bible gives this precise scenario as an example of how far we should go in obeying God. God commanded Abraham to murder his son Isaac, and Abraham was willing to do it, before God stopped him at the last moment. But the point is that Abraham was willing to do it. God was testing him, and Abraham passed the test by showing that he was willing to murder Isaac.

The Bible explicitly says that we should obey God in all things, even if they seem absurd or wrong or don't make any sense to us. Because the Creator of the Universe knows better than you. If He directly tells you to murder your child, then He surely must have a good reason, even if He doesn't explain that reason to you, and you should listen to Him.

It is arrogant and prideful - and therefore sinful - to imagine that you know better than God.

So I can never understand this attitude that some liberal Christians have, where they say "I could never follow a God who commanded ________". Actually, you should follow God no matter what He commands. That's kinda the whole point of major sections of the Bible.

Now, of course, you can legitimately question if God does or does not command homosexual people to abstain from having sex. You can believe that He doesn't. But if you believe that He does, then the reaction "well I guess I can't follow God then" is absurd. The Creator of the Universe should be followed no matter what He commands. Because He's an omniscient being. He literally knows all the possible consequences of every possible action that you could take. Do you honestly imagine that you can judge what is right and what is wrong better than an omniscient being who can see all possible futures?

As I've said in previous discussions around the same topic: If there existed an extremely intelligent and near-omniscient super-being (not even God, necessarily, but something like an advanced alien civilization or a supreme AI), whom I trusted to have good intentions, then I would follow the commands of this being without question, because it knows better than me.

I do not second-guess the decisions of super-minds.

That doesn't sound like the best idea to unquestionably trust a being whose existence is taken on faith.

[The Flutterlands]

And now, there are a couple of posts from the previous CDT that I would like to respond to:


Arians believed that Jesus was a created being, but the very first being that God ever created, before the angels, before humans, and in fact before the universe. They believed that Jesus was not God, but that He was "of similar substance" to God. In other words, Arians believed that Jesus was a special heavenly being, in a category of His own, below God but above anything else - above humans and above angels.

So the Arians placed Jesus a lot closer to God than to man, while denying both the idea that He is (fully) divine and the idea that He is human.


Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that God directly told you to murder your only child in cold blood. We can agree that this is worse than being homophobic and transphobic, right? So what should you do in that case? Curse God and disobey Him?

Well, guess what, the Bible gives this precise scenario as an example of how far we should go in obeying God. God commanded Abraham to murder his son Isaac, and Abraham was willing to do it, before God stopped him at the last moment. But the point is that Abraham was willing to do it. God was testing him, and Abraham passed the test by showing that he was willing to murder Isaac.

The Bible explicitly says that we should obey God in all things, even if they seem absurd or wrong or don't make any sense to us. Because the Creator of the Universe knows better than you. If He directly tells you to murder your child, then He surely must have a good reason, even if He doesn't explain that reason to you, and you should listen to Him.

It is arrogant and prideful - and therefore sinful - to imagine that you know better than God.

So I can never understand this attitude that some liberal Christians have, where they say "I could never follow a God who commanded ________". Actually, you should follow God no matter what He commands. That's kinda the whole point of major sections of the Bible.

Now, of course, you can legitimately question if God does or does not command homosexual people to abstain from having sex. You can believe that He doesn't. But if you believe that He does, then the reaction "well I guess I can't follow God then" is absurd. The Creator of the Universe should be followed no matter what He commands. Because He's an omniscient being. He literally knows all the possible consequences of every possible action that you could take. Do you honestly imagine that you can judge what is right and what is wrong better than an omniscient being who can see all possible futures?

As I've said in previous discussions around the same topic: If there existed an extremely intelligent and near-omniscient super-being (not even God, necessarily, but something like an advanced alien civilization or a supreme AI), whom I trusted to have good intentions, then I would follow the commands of this being without question, because it knows better than me.

I do not second-guess the decisions of super-minds.

That doesn't sound like the best idea to unquestionably trust a being whose existence is taken on faith.

I agree...

[Nordengrund]

The Universe is too big to say that there is no life out there, but that is the only evidence I have seen for extraterrestrial life.

I think there are most definitely alien flora and fauna, but sentient aliens and civilizations are unlikely but not impossible.

[Grand Calvert]

The Universe is too big to say that there is no life out there, but that is the only evidence I have seen for extraterrestrial life.

I think there are most definitely alien flora and fauna, but sentient aliens and civilizations are unlikely but not impossible.

I agree. Personally as a Christian I don't think God created other sentient beings, I'm not saying He didn't, but I believe He created humans to be unique in that respect.

[Constantinopolis]

That doesn't sound like the best idea to unquestionably trust a being whose existence is taken on faith.

The question "Does God exist?" is completely separate and independent from the question "Should we follow God no matter what He commands?"

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question is also yes.
If the answer to the first question is no, then the second question is moot.

But there is no possible case in which God only sort-of exists, and therefore we should only sort-of follow Him, depending on whether we agree or disagree with His commands.

Believe in God, or don't. Do, or do not. There is no try. But whatever you choose to believe, for God's sake (pun intended), don't choose based on whether you like the conclusion or not.

If you choose to believe in God, don't do it just because it's comforting.
And if you choose to be an atheist, don't do it just because you think God is unfair or something-phobic or otherwise goes against your ideas of morality.

[Grand Calvert]

That doesn't sound like the best idea to unquestionably trust a being whose existence is taken on faith.

The question "Does God exist?" is completely separate and independent from the question "Should we follow God no matter what He commands?"

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question is also yes.
If the answer to the first question is no, then the second question is moot.

But there is no possible case in which God only sort-of exists, and therefore we should only sort-of follow Him, depending on whether we agree or disagree with His commands.

Believe in God, or don't. Do, or do not. There is no try. But whatever you choose to believe, for God's sake (pun intended), don't choose based on whether you like the conclusion or not.

If you choose to believe in God, don't do it just because it's comforting.
And if you choose to be an atheist, don't do it just because you think God is unfair or something-phobic or otherwise goes against your ideas of morality.

This is so true. I can only imagine what the outcome would have been if Abraham just said, "Listen God, you don't know what you're talking about, telling me to sacrifice my son".

[The Alexanderians]

That doesn't sound like the best idea to unquestionably trust a being whose existence is taken on faith.

The question "Does God exist?" is completely separate and independent from the question "Should we follow God no matter what He commands?"

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question is also yes.
If the answer to the first question is no, then the second question is moot.

But there is no possible case in which God only sort-of exists, and therefore we should only sort-of follow Him, depending on whether we agree or disagree with His commands.

Believe in God, or don't. Do, or do not. There is no try. But whatever you choose to believe, for God's sake (pun intended), don't choose based on whether you like the conclusion or not.

If you choose to believe in God, don't do it just because it's comforting.
And if you choose to be an atheist, don't do it just because you think God is unfair or something-phobic or otherwise goes against your ideas of morality.

Did you just pull Yoda into this?

[Pachenstein]

The Holy Gospel according to St. Yoda, chapter 6, verse 31.

"Do, or do not. There is no try."

[Constantinopolis]

Did you just pull Yoda into this?

Helps with my point, he does.

[Grand Calvert]

The Holy Gospel according to St. Yoda, chapter 6, verse 31.

"Do, or do not. There is no try."

Why a Gospel of Yoda? There's already a Luke

[Czechanada]

That doesn't sound like the best idea to unquestionably trust a being whose existence is taken on faith.

The question "Does God exist?" is completely separate and independent from the question "Should we follow God no matter what He commands?"

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question is also yes.
If the answer to the first question is no, then the second question is moot.

But there is no possible case in which God only sort-of exists, and therefore we should only sort-of follow Him, depending on whether we agree or disagree with His commands.

Believe in God, or don't. Do, or do not. There is no try. But whatever you choose to believe, for God's sake (pun intended), don't choose based on whether you like the conclusion or not.

If you choose to believe in God, don't do it just because it's comforting.
And if you choose to be an atheist, don't do it just because you think God is unfair or something-phobic or otherwise goes against your ideas of morality.

It's not a question of is God "sort-of" exists. It's the question of the foundation that forms the belief in God. Remember, it's not what the answer to question is, but how a question is answered. The challenge is: "Should we follow god if we are not sure they exist?"

A few months ago, there was a lady in my city who repeatedly stabbed her toddler claiming that God told her to do so. Was she acting morally given that she honestly and consciously was obeying a divine command?

[Nordengrund]

The Universe is too big to say that there is no life out there, but that is the only evidence I have seen for extraterrestrial life.

I think there are most definitely alien flora and fauna, but sentient aliens and civilizations are unlikely but not impossible.

I agree. Personally as a Christian I don't think God created other sentient beings, I'm not saying He didn't, but I believe He created humans to be unique in that respect.

I attended an SDA school and they talked about aliens. They said if they exist, then they did not sin and are still living in their versions of Eden.

That was years ago, so I do not remember how they came up with that.

[Grand Calvert]

The question "Does God exist?" is completely separate and independent from the question "Should we follow God no matter what He commands?"

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question is also yes.
If the answer to the first question is no, then the second question is moot.

But there is no possible case in which God only sort-of exists, and therefore we should only sort-of follow Him, depending on whether we agree or disagree with His commands.

Believe in God, or don't. Do, or do not. There is no try. But whatever you choose to believe, for God's sake (pun intended), don't choose based on whether you like the conclusion or not.

If you choose to believe in God, don't do it just because it's comforting.
And if you choose to be an atheist, don't do it just because you think God is unfair or something-phobic or otherwise goes against your ideas of morality.

It's not a question of is God "sort-of" exists. It's the question of the foundation that forms the belief in God. Remember, it's not what the answer to question is, but how a question is answered. The challenge is: "Should we follow god if we are not sure they exist?"

A few months ago, there was a lady in my city who repeatedly stabbed her toddler claiming that God told her to do so. Was she acting morally given that she honestly and consciously was obeying a divine command?

How did this woman say God spoke to her?

[Grand Calvert]

I agree. Personally as a Christian I don't think God created other sentient beings, I'm not saying He didn't, but I believe He created humans to be unique in that respect.

I attended an SDA school and they talked about aliens. They said if they exist, then they did not sin and are still living in their versions of Eden.

That was years ago, so I do not remember how they came up with that.

Well I can say that I'm pretty sure Jesus's sacrifice really only applies to humans, but about aliens living in Eden im not sure. Who's to say that aliens didn't sin? We don't even know if they exist, let alone their standing before God.

[Czechanada]

It's not a question of is God "sort-of" exists. It's the question of the foundation that forms the belief in God. Remember, it's not what the answer to question is, but how a question is answered. The challenge is: "Should we follow god if we are not sure they exist?"

A few months ago, there was a lady in my city who repeatedly stabbed her toddler claiming that God told her to do so. Was she acting morally given that she honestly and consciously was obeying a divine command?

How did this woman say God spoke to her?

It wasn't stated. All was said that this woman "spoke" to God.

[Constantinopolis]

The question "Does God exist?" is completely separate and independent from the question "Should we follow God no matter what He commands?"

If the answer to the first question is yes, then the answer to the second question is also yes.
If the answer to the first question is no, then the second question is moot.

But there is no possible case in which God only sort-of exists, and therefore we should only sort-of follow Him, depending on whether we agree or disagree with His commands.

Believe in God, or don't. Do, or do not. There is no try. But whatever you choose to believe, for God's sake (pun intended), don't choose based on whether you like the conclusion or not.

If you choose to believe in God, don't do it just because it's comforting.
And if you choose to be an atheist, don't do it just because you think God is unfair or something-phobic or otherwise goes against your ideas of morality.

It's not a question of if God "sort-of" exists. It's the question of the foundation that forms the belief in God. Remember, it's not what the answer to question is, but how a question is answered. The challenge is: "Should we follow god if we are not sure they exist?"

And the answer to that question is either yes or no.

It is definitely not "well, we should maybe follow God in some ways, but not in others."

That's my point. Both following and not following God are legitimate positions you can take. But "I'm going to follow God as long as that doesn't require me to change my life or do anything I'm not comfortable with" is not a legitimate position you can take.

A few months ago, there was a lady in my city who repeatedly stabbed her toddler claiming that God told her to do so. Was she acting morally given that she honestly and consciously was obeying a divine command?

Did God actually tell her to do so? That is the issue here.

The answer to your question does not depend on what she believed, it depends on what you believe. If you believe God actually told her to do it, then yes, you should logically conclude that she was acting morally. On the other hand, if you believe that God did not tell her anything, then you should logically conclude that she is most likely mentally ill.

[Czechanada]

It's not a question of if God "sort-of" exists. It's the question of the foundation that forms the belief in God. Remember, it's not what the answer to question is, but how a question is answered. The challenge is: "Should we follow god if we are not sure they exist?"

And the answer to that question is either yes or no.

It is definitely not "well, we should maybe follow God in some ways, but not in others."

That's my point. Both following and not following God are legitimate positions you can take. But "I'm going to follow God as long as that doesn't require me to change my life or do anything I'm not comfortable with" is not a legitimate position you can take.

A few months ago, there was a lady in my city who repeatedly stabbed her toddler claiming that God told her to do so. Was she acting morally given that she honestly and consciously was obeying a divine command?

Did God actually tell her to do so? That is the issue here.

The answer to your question does not depend on what she believed, it depends on what you believe. If you believe God actually told her to do it, then yes, you should logically conclude that she was acting morally. On the other hand, if you believe that God did not tell her anything, then you should logically conclude that she is most likely mentally ill.

But would it not be hypocritical to believe that god actually did command Abraham to kill Isaak, and not believe this woman? How could Abraham not have been mentally ill as well?

[The Alexanderians]

The Holy Gospel according to St. Yoda, chapter 6, verse 31.

"Do, or do not. There is no try."

Why a Gospel of Yoda? There's already a Luke

Who do you think trained him?

[Luminesa]

How did this woman say God spoke to her?

It wasn't stated. All was said that this woman "spoke" to God.

I say she was possessed. There's ways of telling if it's God or if it's the Devil, and if it's one, it can't be the other! Gospel of Matthew says so.

[Constantinopolis]

But would it not be hypocritical to believe that god actually did command Abraham to kill Isaak, and not believe this woman? How could Abraham not have been mentally ill as well?

You missed the point entirely. The story of Abraham and Isaac was placed in the Bible in order to convey a message - the message that you should trust God completely and absolutely. It does not even matter a great deal if the event described in this story actually happened or not (although I certainly believe it did). The point is the "moral of the story".

To speculate that Abraham may have been mentally ill is as if I just told you the story of The Lord of the Rings in order to teach you about friendship, sacrifice, resisting the seduction of power, etc., and your reaction was "but what if Frodo just hallucinated the whole thing while smoking pipe-weed?"

* * * * *

Having said that, no, you are not obligated to believe every person that claims X just because you believe one person who claimed X. It's not "hypocritical" to trust some people and mistrust others. We could not even function in society if we had to trust every person equally, regardless of who they are. I trust the author of the Book of Genesis, who wrote about Abraham, far more than I trust a random person I never heard about until ten minutes ago.

Or, to use ancient historians as an example: If Eusebius of Caesarea claims that a certain event happened, I'm inclined to trust him. If Procopius claims that a certain event happened... eh, not so much.