Christian Discussion Thread IV

[The Empire of Masyaf]

I guess no one has any thoughts!

They have all achieved a state of emptiness through meditation, and are approaching Nirvana.

Seeing how nirvana is being empty of thoughts, it doesn't sound too appealing

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

It's a sickening doctrine that disgusts me, and that I consider to be an active betrayal of Christian theology.

Is that strong enough for you?

More or less. I guess it just doesn't feel like Christians are willing to reign each other in or challenge each other these days, but again, that's just an outsider's perspective. I guess I just wish more people challenged them in general.

But ROT (I can call you ROT, can't I? My father knew Bertrand Russell, so I don't feel entirely comfortable calling you 'Russel')

Sure. I would have been pretty honored to know him too.

, I've noticed a minor tendency on your part to focus on strands of American evangelical Protestantism when you're critiquing or asking about specific forms of Christian doctrine - as opposed to general critiques of theism, which is a separate issue - whether it's prosperity gospel theology or the perception that Hell is an eternity of vicious torture.

I don't tend to make general critiques of the existence of gods in this thread. There's a thread for whether God exists, and I consider it a bit disrespectful to harass you guys about it in this thread. This thread is clearly about the specifics of Christianity.

So it's no wonder that many Americans give undue prominence to Protestant perspectives, particularly evangelical Protestant perspectives, in theological discussion; but on an international site it should equally be no surprise that the global majority are better represented.

Honestly I tend to find Catholic theology somewhat incomprehensible and changing at the whims of the Vatican, so protestant theology is just a touch easier to learn the specifics of.

[The Archregimancy]

I don't tend to make general critiques of the existence of gods in this thread. There's a thread for whether God exists, and I consider it a bit disrespectful to harass you guys about it in this thread. This thread is clearly about the specifics of Christianity.

I perhaps didn't make myself clear - my apologies.

What I meant was that, in my observation, your broader critiques of theism (in other threads) tend to be on firmer ground than some of your comments about Christianity because the former tend to be more generally applicable than the latter, particularly where your experience is primarily drawn from American Protestants.

That said, I applaud your attempts to politely engage with, and on some level learn from, people whom you disagree with.

Honestly I tend to find Catholic theology somewhat incomprehensible and changing at the whims of the Vatican, so protestant theology is just a touch easier to learn the specifics of.

As us Orthodox never tire of pointing out, Christianity isn't a Catholic-Protestant dichotomy.

And which Protestant theology?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I guess no one has any thoughts!

They have all achieved a state of emptiness through meditation, and are approaching Nirvana.

Must be nice. Anyway I meany on my post on the last page.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

It's a sickening doctrine that disgusts me, and that I consider to be an active betrayal of Christian theology.

Is that strong enough for you?

More or less. I guess it just doesn't feel like Christians are willing to reign each other in or challenge each other these days, but again, that's just an outsider's perspective. I guess I just wish more people challenged them in general.

But ROT (I can call you ROT, can't I? My father knew Bertrand Russell, so I don't feel entirely comfortable calling you 'Russel')

Sure. I would have been pretty honored to know him too.

, I've noticed a minor tendency on your part to focus on strands of American evangelical Protestantism when you're critiquing or asking about specific forms of Christian doctrine - as opposed to general critiques of theism, which is a separate issue - whether it's prosperity gospel theology or the perception that Hell is an eternity of vicious torture.

I don't tend to make general critiques of the existence of gods in this thread. There's a thread for whether God exists, and I consider it a bit disrespectful to harass you guys about it in this thread. This thread is clearly about the specifics of Christianity.

So it's no wonder that many Americans give undue prominence to Protestant perspectives, particularly evangelical Protestant perspectives, in theological discussion; but on an international site it should equally be no surprise that the global majority are better represented.

Honestly I tend to find Catholic theology somewhat incomprehensible and changing at the whims of the Vatican, so protestant theology is just a touch easier to learn the specifics of.

Catholic theology does not change.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

They have all achieved a state of emptiness through meditation, and are approaching Nirvana.

Must be nice. Anyway I meany on my post on the last page.

It's for you to decide, but I'd say go with theology school.

[Constantinopolis]

So I know it's not quite on subject here, but I'm trying to get as many opinions as possible. I've been on track to go back in the marines, but now I'm finding other opportunities that I never even dreamed about 2 years ago. Like Possibly going to Notre Dame for a Masters of Theological Studies. What do yall think I should do?

Well... you know me and I'm sure you can guess where I stand on US foreign policy... So what do you think I am going to say about the choice between (a) joining a military organization whose job it is to enforce US foreign policy, or (b) doing something else?

But seriously, since I do not really understand what motivated you to go into the marines in the first place, I'm not sure I can give proper advice. To me, your choice seems like an open-and-shut case, even leaving aside all politics, because joining the military is distinctly unappealing, while studying for a Master's degree in Theological Studies seems like an exciting prospect in and of itself, with the added benefit of opening up a clear career path for you (in a way that the marines simply could not do, unless you were planning on a military career).

I guess what I'm saying is, why would you not go to Notre Dame for a Master's degree in Theological Studies?

[Aelex]

So I know it's not quite on subject here, but I'm trying to get as many opinions as possible. I've been on track to go back in the marines, but now I'm finding other opportunities that I never even dreamed about 2 years ago. Like Possibly going to Notre Dame for a Masters of Theological Studies. What do yall think I should do?

Well, actually, I would advise you the theological school, you have way less chance to kill innocent people by attending it rather than the military one... :/

[Herskerstad]

More or less. I guess it just doesn't feel like Christians are willing to reign each other in or challenge each other these days, but again, that's just an outsider's perspective. I guess I just wish more people challenged them in general.
Sure. I would have been pretty honored to know him too.I don't tend to make general critiques of the existence of gods in this thread. There's a thread for whether God exists, and I consider it a bit disrespectful to harass you guys about it in this thread. This thread is clearly about the specifics of Christianity.

Honestly I tend to find Catholic theology somewhat incomprehensible and changing at the whims of the Vatican, so protestant theology is just a touch easier to learn the specifics of.

Catholic theology does not change.

What are you talking about? Additions to the catechism, morphing dogmas, church tradition additions, saints and their roles, all of these are progressive additions that directly impacts said theology, which the church tends to update on a decade-century level and has for over a thousand years.

[Nordengrund]

I assume it would be like sending it to a person of a different faith.

I dunno how Osteen feels about Catholicism, but I mean...I don't think he'd try to burn it, or whatever. I can't see him as the, "The-Church-is-the-Whore-of-Babylon" type of fundamentalist.

Well he is Protestant, and Protestants do believe in saints, but not the same way Catholics do. If you're a Baptist like me, we that all believers (Christians) are saints. However we do not revere each other in anyway. Saint in a Baptist church is nothing more than a believer.

Some Protestant churches use saints in their name (eg. Saint Paul). Saint in this context means that that person was a really good and faithful Christian, but we do not pray to them in any way.

[Luminesa]

I guess no one has any thoughts!

They have all achieved a state of emptiness through meditation, and are approaching Nirvana.

But I'm a Soundgarden fan!

[Herskerstad]

*Preparing to go into rant mode. You have been warned.*

I personally despise everything Joel Osteen says. He has a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.

Some examples of saints who defy Joel Osteen's teachings (all of whom were poor/sickly):

1.) A fisherman (St. Peter)
2.) A poor, sickly girl from France (St. Bernadette)
3.) A young invalid orphan who spent her last years bedridden on a wooden pallet (St. Seraphina)
4.) A 6-year-old girl with bone cancer (Bl. Antoinetta Mio)
5.) A Polish orphan and prisoner of war (St. Pope John Paul II)
6.) A poor, uneducated parish priest (St. John Vianney)
7.) A lowly Carmelite novice (St. Therese of Liseux)
8.) A poor girl from Macedonia (Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
9.) A poor carpenter (St. Joseph)
10.) A peasant girl (St. Joan of Arc)

I'd add a question to a few of these. While it is true most of them were poor, some did indeed acquire significant temporal prosperity. Some to last for a long time, some not to do. And no, I am not defending the prosperity gospel. I don't John the Baptist was counting golden coins through his desert travels. While it is true that some people will do works for God that requires coin, it is also true that some will serve God all the more closely without it and there is no correlation to ones material wealth and devotion to God. Money can indeed corrupt from such devotion more often than it adds to such. Nevertheless, for some of these, I would pose questions when it comes to poverty.

1 - First one here is hard to define for numerous reasons. Fishermen were generally tradesmen on top of their work and given that Peter was multilingual, it is fairly certain to expect him being among those who made sales not only in the Judean region which points towards him not being what one would consider poor. It is strongly suspected that he had a wife too at one point in his life and we know that he had a house which was while not grand, not overly humble either in it's scale or form though this would likely be from after the time of Christ. I'd go with Paul rather than Peter on such a list and that's no disservice to someone as great as Peter, but Paul made his living out of tent-making and did not collect money from his ministry, which he said were still something that could be rightfully done. That, and no wife. What's the most important when it comes to peter was that his earthly possessions were of no value compared to how highly he held God, and to a degree, I think that's the gold standard of faith. That one is willing to give up everything needed, be it wealth or comfort, yay, even family and friends if need be for God.

5 - There is not exactly a great deal of lack of coin, pomp, prestige, art, ect, ect attributed to a person in such an office like that of the papacy during such a time. Was he poor at one point in his life? Absolutely. Was he poor during his later years? Only if everyone else in the entire world would be considered considered poor. Certainly more wealthy than any prosperity gospel-peddeler if not all of them combined.

6 - Popular priest during his most important years, while defidently over-worked which can be considered a poverty in itself, being a priest was generally middle-class material.

8 - To be as fair as I can be here. There's a difference in poverty of currency and poverty of wealth. She certainly had no poverty in means of currency, and she had a few less than reputable sources of said wealth, but she did not utilize said wealth on herself to live a luxurious life so.... yeah. She had some luxuries not afford to poor people, that' for certain, but she seemed to have much more a thing for suffering than a thing for comfort which I find of interest, though, I question at times, if it is the right medicine for the kind of people that sometimes would be at such an institution.

9 - Very hard to say given the records that exist. While there is no doubt of his poverty during the time when Christ was born, we do know that he was a carpenter of some kind which could mean anything from low-level building assistance to highly skilled, and well paid artisan work. Given that he passed it on I suspect it as a permanent and rooted, and in such a case, at least a situation which granted enough material wealth to do by and then some, even with the regressive Roman taxation-pressures. Hard to confirm either way.

10 - A peasant girl from a wealthy peasant family 'which at that time would be lower-middle on a more stringent social latter, but still quite high compared to one who would truly be poor. Became a leader of men which in logistical terms certainly would have involved a deal of power. Bullied the hussites who in contrast was actually poor. She certainly did not gain the dynastic wealth she could have at one point in her life Though.

[Luminesa]

*Preparing to go into rant mode. You have been warned.*

I personally despise everything Joel Osteen says. He has a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.

Some examples of saints who defy Joel Osteen's teachings (all of whom were poor/sickly):

1.) A fisherman (St. Peter)
2.) A poor, sickly girl from France (St. Bernadette)
3.) A young invalid orphan who spent her last years bedridden on a wooden pallet (St. Seraphina)
4.) A 6-year-old girl with bone cancer (Bl. Antoinetta Mio)
5.) A Polish orphan and prisoner of war (St. Pope John Paul II)
6.) A poor, uneducated parish priest (St. John Vianney)
7.) A lowly Carmelite novice (St. Therese of Liseux)
8.) A poor girl from Macedonia (Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
9.) A poor carpenter (St. Joseph)
10.) A peasant girl (St. Joan of Arc)

I'd add a question to a few of these. While it is true most of them were poor, some did indeed acquire significant temporal prosperity. Some to last for a long time, some not to do. And no, I am not defending the prosperity gospel. I don't John the Baptist was counting golden coins through his desert travels. While it is true that some people will do works for God that requires coin, it is also true that some will serve God all the more closely without it and there is no correlation to ones material wealth and devotion to God. Money can indeed corrupt from such devotion more often than it adds to such. Nevertheless, for some of these, I would pose questions when it comes to poverty.

1 - First one here is hard to define for numerous reasons. Fishermen were generally tradesmen on top of their work and given that Peter was multilingual, it is fairly certain to expect him being among those who made sales not only in the Judean region which points towards him not being what one would consider poor. It is strongly suspected that he had a wife too at one point in his life and we know that he had a house which was while not grand, not overly humble either in it's scale or form though this would likely be from after the time of Christ. I'd go with Paul rather than Peter on such a list and that's no disservice to someone as great as Peter, but Paul made his living out of tent-making and did not collect money from his ministry, which he said were still something that could be rightfully done. That, and no wife. What's the most important when it comes to peter was that his earthly possessions were of no value compared to how highly he held God, and to a degree, I think that's the gold standard of faith. That one is willing to give up everything needed, be it wealth or comfort, yay, even family and friends if need be for God.

5 - There is not exactly a great deal of lack of coin, pomp, prestige, art, ect, ect attributed to a person in such an office like that of the papacy during such a time. Was he poor at one point in his life? Absolutely. Was he poor during his later years? Only if everyone else in the entire world would be considered considered poor. Certainly more wealthy than any prosperity gospel-peddeler if not all of them combined.

6 - Popular priest during his most important years, while defidently over-worked which can be considered a poverty in itself, being a priest was generally middle-class material.

8 - To be as fair as I can be here. There's a difference in poverty of currency and poverty of wealth. She certainly had no poverty in means of currency, and she had a few less than reputable sources of said wealth, but she did not utilize said wealth on herself to live a luxurious life so.... yeah. She had some luxuries not afford to poor people, that' for certain, but she seemed to have much more a thing for suffering than a thing for comfort which I find of interest, though, I question at times, if it is the right medicine for the kind of people that sometimes would be at such an institution.

9 - Very hard to say given the records that exist. While there is no doubt of his poverty during the time when Christ was born, we do know that he was a carpenter of some kind which could mean anything from low-level building assistance to highly skilled, and well paid artisan work. Given that he passed it on I suspect it as a permanent and rooted, and in such a case, at least a situation which granted enough material wealth to do by and then some, even with the regressive Roman taxation-pressures. Hard to confirm either way.

10 - A peasant girl from a wealthy peasant family 'which at that time would be lower-middle on a more stringent social latter, but still quite high compared to one who would truly be poor. Became a leader of men which in logistical terms certainly would have involved a deal of power. Bullied the hussites who in contrast was actually poor. She certainly did not gain the dynastic wealth she could have at one point in her life Though.

Thanks for the insight.

1.) I didn't know Paul was a tentmaker. I thought he came from upper middle-class, considering his social standing as far as Acts goes, but okay. I see your point.

5.) Sure, but it wasn't necessarily an easy road getting there, and becoming pope is pretty much a case of luck. Also, we both know that JP2 didn't try to act like he was above anyone, so I feel that already makes him better than Mr. Osteen.

6.) Well, he came from a peasant background, and like you said, he didn't necessarily have a comfortable life (plus he physically fought the devil for 45 straight years.) But we could say his overall lifestyle was far from luxurious. He worked in a very little town, too.

8.) ...Can you explain? I mean, we both know she didn't use any sort of money she got for herself. But she was no villain, like people like Hitchens like to portray her. She was a hero, and she sought to give the poorest of the poor the love and dignity they deserved, even as she did so with very limited resources.

9.) I mean, yeah, we don't have many records of St. Joseph, but Jesus wanted to be among the poor. Not to mention that Joseph probably would have been poor, because a middle-class person would not have married a poor 15-year-old girl.

10.) I see what you mean, though...could you send me a source about Joan coming from a 'wealthy' family? I always thought she was lower-lower class. Also, she didn't bully anyone. Britain was bullying France, at the time, and then she came and helped France to an eventual victory. But you're right in saying she refused wealth that she could have had. That just wasn't her thing.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Catholic theology does not change.

What are you talking about? Additions to the catechism, morphing dogmas, church tradition additions, saints and their roles, all of these are progressive additions that directly impacts said theology, which the church tends to update on a decade-century level and has for over a thousand years.

teachings =/= theology

[Aelex]

Well, I tried to pray and to meditate but both are definetly not my thing... So, I guess I'll stick to read holy books and to use prayers only as mantra...
Still, I would like to attend to a catholic service one day; but I don't really know how my parents would react if I asked them...
I mean, my dad is an fierce Atheist (even he started to drift toward Agnostism lately) but he when I started to interest in Christianty, he made the effort to read the Bible, which meaned a lot for me, still, I don't think he would let me go to it; and well, my mom is Catholic and as non-practicing as me but I guess she wouldn't mind.

Still, I don't really know how they would react to it...
I mean, last summer, during holiday, we visited a Britain Cathedral and burned a candle, but well it was kinda akward, I don't know why, but talking of theology/religion is almost like talking of sex for some reason I don't understand...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So I know it's not quite on subject here, but I'm trying to get as many opinions as possible. I've been on track to go back in the marines, but now I'm finding other opportunities that I never even dreamed about 2 years ago. Like Possibly going to Notre Dame for a Masters of Theological Studies. What do yall think I should do?

Well... you know me and I'm sure you can guess where I stand on US foreign policy... So what do you think I am going to say about the choice between (a) joining a military organization whose job it is to enforce US foreign policy, or (b) doing something else?

But seriously, since I do not really understand what motivated you to go into the marines in the first place, I'm not sure I can give proper advice. To me, your choice seems like an open-and-shut case, even leaving aside all politics, because joining the military is distinctly unappealing, while studying for a Master's degree in Theological Studies seems like an exciting prospect in and of itself, with the added benefit of opening up a clear career path for you (in a way that the marines simply could not do, unless you were planning on a military career).

I guess what I'm saying is, why would you not go to Notre Dame for a Master's degree in Theological Studies?

Honestly I left the Marines in 2013 with full intent on going back, and I guess I feel like its expected of me. But then my Father straight up told me to put off the Marines for another year if I keep getting the DC 2 step from them.

I dunno, Marines is security, Grad school isn't.

Any way thanks, I just like to get other opinions before a I make a monumental decision like this.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Back to the subject of at hand,


I don't find anything logistically wrong with the idea of the Prosperity Gospel. After all looking at Job, he kept the faith of God and he prospered, and then when he was tested, he still kept the faith and then Prospered seven fold. And the inclusion of Proverbs in the Bible suggests at least a somewhat concept of "keep these words and you will prosper" And while much of the NT focuses on suffering of Christians, they were dealing with influences we never will.

However, the theology of the Prosperity Gospel, betrays the Spirit of Christianity. Christianity isn't about wealth or status, its about serving your fellow man, and God.

[Conscentia]

Back to the subject of at hand,
I don't find anything logistically [...]

You seem to be using the wrong word there...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Back to the subject of at hand,
I don't find anything logistically [...]

You seem to be using the wrong word there...

No, I finding nothing wrong with the logistics of the Prosperity Gospel

[Conscentia]

You seem to be using the wrong word there...

No, I finding nothing wrong with the logistics of the Prosperity Gospel

That doesn't make any sense.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, I finding nothing wrong with the logistics of the Prosperity Gospel

That doesn't make any sense.

"the handling of the details of an operation" one of the definitions.


it makes perfect sense. and I honestly don't feel like debating pedantry.

[Aelex]

"the handling of the details of an operation" one of the definitions.


it makes perfect sense. and I honestly don't feel like debating pedantry.

Quite sad, pedantry is one of the most abondant thing here... :/

[Luminesa]

That's what I've gotten from it. I dunno, I don't wanna go listen to one of Joel Osteen's talks, to go find out. I'm listening to "Hotel California", which is far more interesting than one of his bland talks.

Sure, he had a net gain, but at the same time, the Prosperity Gospel is indeed an exploitation of this story. Again, nobody ever said Joel Osteen is giving a strong, powerful message of sacrificial love and making beauty out of pain.

I dunno, maybe Fr. Robert Barron explains it better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ip4Jx92F94

Nevertheless, I will never accept Mr. Osteen's teachings. They are a genuine load of baloney.

Well, trust me, I'm not trying to convince you to. It's just hard for me to believe sometimes that people can actually, authentically be that stupid.

I agree.

[Aelex]

That's what I've gotten from it. I dunno, I don't wanna go listen to one of Joel Osteen's talks, to go find out. I'm listening to "Hotel California", which is far more interesting than one of his bland talks.

Sure, he had a net gain, but at the same time, the Prosperity Gospel is indeed an exploitation of this story. Again, nobody ever said Joel Osteen is giving a strong, powerful message of sacrificial love and making beauty out of pain.

I dunno, maybe Fr. Robert Barron explains it better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ip4Jx92F94

Nevertheless, I will never accept Mr. Osteen's teachings. They are a genuine load of baloney.

Well, trust me, I'm not trying to convince you to. It's just hard for me to believe sometimes that people can actually, authentically be that stupid.

Ho, don't worry, people can be a hell lotta more stupid sometime...
Like electing this guy two times...

[Luminesa]

So I know it's not quite on subject here, but I'm trying to get as many opinions as possible. I've been on track to go back in the marines, but now I'm finding other opportunities that I never even dreamed about 2 years ago. Like Possibly going to Notre Dame for a Masters of Theological Studies. What do yall think I should do?

Pray on it and think about what will give you the most peace.

That's what I've learned to do, when thinking about my vocation.