Christian Discussion Thread II

[Tsaraine]

Here's some random questions, if you will accept them, from a filthy hubristic humanist atheist; I'm genuinely interested in your answers, and not trying to start the tired old atheism-vs-religion debate; that bores me.

How do you reconcile the supernatural Father and LORD with the modern desire for an egalitarian and democratic assembly of adult equals? It seems to me that children must grow up, and take their place beside their parents as equals in judgment; and that no good father, or Father, would wish to remain in a position of absolute and unquestionable authority for ever. How do you advance the cause of the Kingdom of God when the Republic of Heaven seems so much more in keeping with the enlightened fraternity of today?

And who now remembers the fate of the Amalekites?

[Menassa]

Here's some random questions, if you will accept them, from a filthy hubristic humanist atheist; I'm genuinely interested in your answers, and not trying to start the tired old atheism-vs-religion debate; that bores me.

How do you reconcile the supernatural Father and LORD with the modern desire for an egalitarian and democratic assembly of adult equals? It seems to me that children must grow up, and take their place beside their parents as equals in judgment; and that no good Father would wish to remain in a position of absolute and unquestionable authority for ever. How do you advance the cause of the Kingdom of God when the Republic of Heaven seems so much more in keeping with the enlightened fraternity of today?

And who now remembers the fate of the Amalekites?

I can attest to the destruction of the Amalekites, the enemy of God who attacked Israel on the way when they were weary.

What of them?

[Vazdania]

To Archy

From Vaz

Subject: I told you so

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints also rejects Trinitarian doctrine, although other churches that are part of the Latter-Day Saint movement still adhere to the Nicene Creed. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct entities, with the Father and the Son possessing physical bodies of flesh and bone but the Holy Ghost existing only as a spirit, enabling it to dwell within us.

What on earth are you going on about now?

I outlined all of the above back on page 11 of this thread.

So I fail to see how this could possibly be construed as 'I told you so'.

And since the 14 million members Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints comprise 98% of the LDS Movement, I'm not sure that your making an exception for the 250,000 members of the Trinitarian Community of Christ is wholly relevant here.

However, Mormon doctrine differs from Arianism in a number of ways

Of course it does; especially since Arianism is a classical fourth-century heresy rather than, say, a 19th-century restorationist movement like Mormonism.

When you can show me that I at any point attempted to draw any type of connection between the two, perhaps we can talk.

In the meantime, I'm just going to put you over in that little box where I put all of the other people who can't string a coherent argument across more than one sentence.

Yes! I get to be in a box XD

No I was refering to previous statements awhile ago stating that you don't believe Mormons are Christian based on the Nicene Creed, they DO follow the Nicene Creed and are indeed Christian.

[Norstal]

Here's some random questions, if you will accept them, from a filthy hubristic humanist atheist; I'm genuinely interested in your answers, and not trying to start the tired old atheism-vs-religion debate; that bores me.

How do you reconcile the supernatural Father and LORD with the modern desire for an egalitarian and democratic assembly of adult equals? It seems to me that children must grow up, and take their place beside their parents as equals in judgment; and that no good father, or Father, would wish to remain in a position of absolute and unquestionable authority for ever. How do you advance the cause of the Kingdom of God when the Republic of Heaven seems so much more in keeping with the enlightened fraternity of today?

Are you saying monotheism is against Western ideals of democracy and equality? You're right, except for one thing. Those ideals doesn't apply to god. It would be like, if the U.S turned to dictatorship at the federal level, but remains democratic in the state level.

That's a crappy analogy, but it's quite possible.

Now are you saying that a god such as Yahweh wants to stop human progress in order to prevent another god from existing? That's quite likely. Probably the only reason why I'm confused as to why there are Christians who are interested in science when it's clear they're not supposed to dabble in such things.

[Tsaraine]

I can attest to the destruction of the Amalekites, the enemy of God who attacked Israel on the way when they were weary.

What of them?

My reading of it - which may well be incorrect - is that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert. God then commanded the Israelites to exterminate them, to wage a genocidal campaign, and they did so. Saul was then punished - his throne given to David - not for the crime of genocide, but because his genocide was not thorough enough (IIRC he didn't kill all the women and children). I find this incident ... really troubling, from a moral standpoint.

Are you saying monotheism is against Western ideals of democracy and equality? You're right, except for one thing. Those ideals doesn't apply to god. It would be like, if the U.S turned to dictatorship at the federal level, but remains democratic in the state level.

That's a crappy analogy, but it's quite possible.

Now are you saying that a god such as Yahweh wants to stop human progress in order to prevent another god from existing? That's quite likely. Probably the only reason why I'm confused as to why there are Christians who are interested in science when it's clear they're not supposed to dabble in such things.

Monotheism per se isn't irreconcilable with democracy and equality; I can easily conceive of a god as fellow traveler, guide and aide on that road ... but it does seem that the God of the Bible is not that god. I'm not sure where you got from what I wrote that God desires to halt human progress to prevent challenges to His position (although the story of Babel* and of Eden** would seem to say that that is in fact the case); the alternative would be that the space between God and Man is simply irreconcilable, that we cannot reach upwards to embrace the divine nature - but this in turn seems to run contrary to "The Kingdom of God is within you". As one might expect, I regard the idea that we are forever doomed to remain children at the feet of the Father with some dismay.

*"Behold; the people are one, and they have all one language. Now nothing will be restrained from them, that they have decided to do. Therefore let us go down, and there confound their language."
*"Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and eat also of the Tree of Life, and live forever, we must send him forth. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden ..."

[Seperates]

Here's some random questions, if you will accept them, from a filthy hubristic humanist atheist; I'm genuinely interested in your answers, and not trying to start the tired old atheism-vs-religion debate; that bores me.

How do you reconcile the supernatural Father and LORD with the modern desire for an egalitarian and democratic assembly of adult equals? It seems to me that children must grow up, and take their place beside their parents as equals in judgment; and that no good father, or Father, would wish to remain in a position of absolute and unquestionable authority for ever. How do you advance the cause of the Kingdom of God when the Republic of Heaven seems so much more in keeping with the enlightened fraternity of today?

And who now remembers the fate of the Amalekites?

The only issue with that is that if God is not mundane, then there isn't really anyway to have a debate with him. He's always right. He can tell you what the best movie of all time and space is, and you cannot argue with his descision.

[Menassa]

I can attest to the destruction of the Amalekites, the enemy of God who attacked Israel on the way when they were weary.

What of them?

My reading of it - which may well be incorrect - is that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert. God then commanded the Israelites to exterminate them, to wage a genocidal campaign, and they did so. Saul was then punished - his throne given to David - not for the crime of genocide, but because his genocide was not thorough enough (IIRC he didn't kill all the women and children). I find this incident ... really troubling, from a moral standpoint.

On a side note it wasn't that he didn't kill the women and children it's that he didn't kill the king and the king escaped and breeded more.... or maybe his wife escape and bred more.

Imagine a hot bathtub that no one wishes to get into for fear of burns, then some nut out of nowhere jumps into the bathtub.

He is rushed to the emergency room, for his burns but the people can now use that bathtub because it's less hot.

This is what Amalek did, the Children of Israel were feared among all the world for everyone knew that they had God with with them.... but everything changed when Amalek attacked, they tested the waters and showed the world it was okay to attack God's people.

Every single time the Jews have wanted to go back into Israel Amalek has been there to stop them.... from Egypt, from Persia, it was Haman grand (or great) son of Agag, and lastly the Holocaust.... people do believe Germany is descended from the cursed seed.

That's why the sin of Saul was so great, we should not have mercy on a people who are so evil and so twisted and so morally backwards that they are far from saving.

Also with the question of how can we genocide if we are so morally correct, the answer to that would be if God tells us to genocide the it must be right.

To which you may respond what would happen if God told you to kill wide-eyed orphans and puppies?

Well, when he does.... you can call me.

[Tsaraine]

On a side note it wasn't that he didn't kill the women and children it's that he didn't kill the king and the king escaped and breeded more.... or maybe his wife escape and bred more.

Imagine a hot bathtub that no one wishes to get into for fear of burns, then some nut out of nowhere jumps into the bathtub.

He is rushed to the emergency room, for his burns but the people can now use that bathtub because it's less hot.

This is what Amalek did, the Children of Israel were feared among all the world for everyone knew that they had God with with them.... but everything changed when Amalek attacked, they tested the waters and showed the world it was okay to attack God's people.

Every single time the Jews have wanted to go back into Israel Amalek has been there to stop them.... from Egypt, from Persia, it was Haman grand (or great) son of Agag, and lastly the Holocaust.... people do believe Germany is descended from the cursed seed.

That's why the sin of Saul was so great, we should not have mercy on a people who are so evil and so twisted and so morally backwards that they are far from saving.

Also with the question of how can we genocide if we are so morally correct, the answer to that would be if God tells us to genocide the it must be right.

To which you may respond what would happen if God told you to kill wide-eyed orphans and puppies?

Well, when he does.... you can call me.

Thank you, that explains a lot. I do think that your "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites" is poor genealogy, though, and "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites = God says it's okay to wage campaigns of genocide upon them" is morally questionable at best. But then there's a Socratic dialogue - I forget which one - which asks "Do the gods love good because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it?". You've clearly positioned yourself in the latter camp; and I will always stand firmly in the former.

[Dieu Vous Benisse]

On a side note it wasn't that he didn't kill the women and children it's that he didn't kill the king and the king escaped and breeded more.... or maybe his wife escape and bred more.

Imagine a hot bathtub that no one wishes to get into for fear of burns, then some nut out of nowhere jumps into the bathtub.

He is rushed to the emergency room, for his burns but the people can now use that bathtub because it's less hot.

This is what Amalek did, the Children of Israel were feared among all the world for everyone knew that they had God with with them.... but everything changed when Amalek attacked, they tested the waters and showed the world it was okay to attack God's people.

Every single time the Jews have wanted to go back into Israel Amalek has been there to stop them.... from Egypt, from Persia, it was Haman grand (or great) son of Agag, and lastly the Holocaust.... people do believe Germany is descended from the cursed seed.

That's why the sin of Saul was so great, we should not have mercy on a people who are so evil and so twisted and so morally backwards that they are far from saving.

Also with the question of how can we genocide if we are so morally correct, the answer to that would be if God tells us to genocide the it must be right.

To which you may respond what would happen if God told you to kill wide-eyed orphans and puppies?

Well, when he does.... you can call me.

Thank you, that explains a lot. I do think that your "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites" is poor genealogy, though, and "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites = God says it's okay to wage campaigns of genocide upon them" is morally questionable at best. But then there's a Socratic dialogue - I forget which one - which asks "Do the gods love good because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it?". You've clearly positioned yourself in the latter camp; and I will always stand firmly in the former.

So, out of this; both parties learned nothing

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I remember recently we had a discussion about dual-covenant theology, this is similar to the apokatastais you speak of no?

I was always lead to believe the trinity is an essential part of Christian doctrine and theology, being that Christ must be God in order to truly forgive sin.

I think the Trinity is more a part of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, not as much Protestant and reformed denominations.

My 100th Post!

…where the hell did you get that idea? Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

[Dieu Vous Benisse]

I think the Trinity is more a part of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, not as much Protestant and reformed denominations.

My 100th Post!

…where the hell did you get that idea? Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

Maybe they believe in God and Jesus, but not the Holy Spirit

[Menassa]

On a side note it wasn't that he didn't kill the women and children it's that he didn't kill the king and the king escaped and breeded more.... or maybe his wife escape and bred more.

Imagine a hot bathtub that no one wishes to get into for fear of burns, then some nut out of nowhere jumps into the bathtub.

He is rushed to the emergency room, for his burns but the people can now use that bathtub because it's less hot.

This is what Amalek did, the Children of Israel were feared among all the world for everyone knew that they had God with with them.... but everything changed when Amalek attacked, they tested the waters and showed the world it was okay to attack God's people.

Every single time the Jews have wanted to go back into Israel Amalek has been there to stop them.... from Egypt, from Persia, it was Haman grand (or great) son of Agag, and lastly the Holocaust.... people do believe Germany is descended from the cursed seed.

That's why the sin of Saul was so great, we should not have mercy on a people who are so evil and so twisted and so morally backwards that they are far from saving.

Also with the question of how can we genocide if we are so morally correct, the answer to that would be if God tells us to genocide the it must be right.

To which you may respond what would happen if God told you to kill wide-eyed orphans and puppies?

Well, when he does.... you can call me.

Thank you, that explains a lot. I do think that your "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites" is poor genealogy, though, and "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites = God says it's okay to wage campaigns of genocide upon them" is morally questionable at best. But then there's a Socratic dialogue - I forget which one - which asks "Do the gods love good because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it?". You've clearly positioned yourself in the latter camp; and I will always stand firmly in the former.

Well if you look at say God and call him a morally questionable psychopath who eats babies every other Tuesday, then whatever he says is going to be morally questionable in your (ones) mind.

If the enemies of Jews are the enemies of God and the Amalekites are the enemies of the Jews.

I think if I remember from Geometry.... what is it called syllogism? Then Amalekites are the enemies are of God.

[Menassa]

Thank you, that explains a lot. I do think that your "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites" is poor genealogy, though, and "enemies of the Jews = Amalekites = God says it's okay to wage campaigns of genocide upon them" is morally questionable at best. But then there's a Socratic dialogue - I forget which one - which asks "Do the gods love good because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it?". You've clearly positioned yourself in the latter camp; and I will always stand firmly in the former.

So, out of this; both parties learned nothing

I think Israel learned a very valuable lesson.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

…where the hell did you get that idea? Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

Maybe they believe in God and Jesus, but not the Holy Spirit

…who?

[Tsaraine]

Well if you look at say God and call him a morally questionable psychopath who eats babies every other Tuesday, then whatever he says is going to be morally questionable in your (ones) mind.

If the enemies of Jews are the enemies of God and the Amalekites are the enemies of the Jews.

I think if I remember from Geometry.... what is it called syllogism? Then Amalekites are the enemies are of God.

You've got it around the wrong way; I look at the things that God does in the Bible and find them morally questionable. I'm not starting from the position that God is morally questionable and picking my evidence to suit; but it's hard for me to draw any conclusion except that God is morally questionable. But we seem to be straying into the whole "atheism-vs-religion" thing, so I've no particular desire to continue this particular argument.

So, out of this; both parties learned nothing

Not so; both parties learned the shapes of each others' morality, as illustrated by our different approaches to the matter of the Amalekites. That's always a worthy thing to learn.

[Farnhamia]

Maybe they believe in God and Jesus, but not the Holy Spirit

…who?

Them.

[Menassa]

Well if you look at say God and call him a morally questionable psychopath who eats babies every other Tuesday, then whatever he says is going to be morally questionable in your (ones) mind.

If the enemies of Jews are the enemies of God and the Amalekites are the enemies of the Jews.

I think if I remember from Geometry.... what is it called syllogism? Then Amalekites are the enemies are of God.

You've got it around the wrong way; I look at the things that God does in the Bible and find them morally questionable. I'm not starting from the position that God is morally questionable and picking my evidence to suit; but it's hard for me to draw any conclusion except that God is morally questionable.

With both the Written Law (Torah Sh'Bicsav)and the Oral Law {Torah Sh'Ba'al Peh} we can see that God is not morally questionable.... some of the things he does may be morally questionable to a Human living today in the world of 2012. But God, has the plan and blueprint for the entire world, up to but not including the world in 2222.

EDIT: Didn't see that last bit, it was worthwhile discussing this with you.

[Conscentia]

[...] Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

I disagree.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

…who?

Them.

Oh…

[Xathranaar]

[...] Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

I disagree.

No. You see, the Trinitarians won way back in the 4th Century.

And by Highlander Law, that makes them right forever.

There can be only one! Well... three... one-ish three!

[Goodclark]

Messianic Jews are not real Jews. They are just Christians trying to get Jews to convert to Christianity.

lolololololol

Well, if they are Jews that believe Christ is the Messiah then wouldn't that make them Christians. Because that is the definition of a Christian.

chris·tian
ˌkrisCHən:
A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

[Goodclark]

I think the Trinity is more a part of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, not as much Protestant and reformed denominations.

My 100th Post!

…where the hell did you get that idea? Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

I completely agree, The trinity is one of the most important teachings, if you deny the trinity then you are not a Christian.

[Conscentia]

…where the hell did you get that idea? Denying the Trinity excludes one from being Christian, as the Trinity is necessary for subsitutionary atonement.

I completely agree, The trinity is one of the most important teachings, if you deny the trinity then you are not a Christian.

I disagree.

[Goodclark]

Maybe they believe in God and Jesus, but not the Holy Spirit

…who?

I know a lot of Protestants, all of them believe in the Holy Spirit, I have no idea where you are getting the idea that Protestants don't believe in the trinity...

[Goodclark]

I completely agree, The trinity is one of the most important teachings, if you deny the trinity then you are not a Christian.

I disagree.

Why is that?