Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Pasong Tirad]

Again, as I've said, I don't have all the answers. I believe Christ is both human and divine, so that would be an easy way for me to wrap my head around his miracle-work but I personally don't buy it. The way I see it is that focusing on His miracle-work is distracting us from His message and His teachings.

If you don't have all the answers, though, that doesn't necessarily make the miracles invalid. Just pray and ask God to increase your faith in Him. ^^

That's totally true. I don't have all the answers and I don't claim that my beliefs are correct, it's just that it's what my conscience is telling me. So, until then, I have my God and I do everything I can in my every day life to be a neighbor and I think that's enough for me.

[Jamzmania]

So you believe that large parts of the scriptures are fairy tales.

I believe there's a rational explanation for all of it. I just don't have all the answers.

But Christ specifically showed His power and divinity through working miracles CONSTANTLY.

Again, as I've said, I don't have all the answers. I believe Christ is both human and divine, so that would be an easy way for me to wrap my head around his miracle-work but I personally don't buy it. The way I see it is that focusing on His miracle-work is distracting us from His message and His teachings.

Except we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to follow Christ and believe His message without miracles. The whole purpose of miracles which, almost by definition, bend or break natural law is to confirm that the message is from God. The Virgin Birth, giving sight to the blind, healing the sick, feeding the thousands, walking on water, commanding the weather, commanding nature itself, the prophecies, even the Ressurrection itself - you don't believe any of these events occurred as described in the Scriptures?

Keep in mind that unlike much of the Old Testament, the Gospels are not poetry, storytelling, metaphorical, or anything like that. They are quite clearly meant to be historical accounts of real events. If you believe that the aforementioned miracles did not occur as described, then the Gospels are filled with blatant falsehoods, and I question why you believe we should follow the teachings of some figure from an obviously false book?

[Jamzmania]

If you don't have all the answers, though, that doesn't necessarily make the miracles invalid. Just pray and ask God to increase your faith in Him. ^^

That's totally true. I don't have all the answers and I don't claim that my beliefs are correct, it's just that it's what my conscience is telling me. So, until then, I have my God and I do everything I can in my every day life to be a neighbor and I think that's enough for me.

I should also mention that I really respect your attitude of trying to follow the teachings of Christ, and I'm just trying to make philosophical arguments because I like to do that sometimes.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Just remember this: Nothing is impossible for God.

[Angleter]

Why do you not believe in miracles? They are fundamental to Christianity. Without miracles, how would you know what to believe? How would you know that a man's message is truly from God? Anyone can claim to be God, but only God can confirm the message through miracles.

Okay I think we have a great misunderstanding. I said I don't believe in miracles that bend natural law, like the blind suddenly being able to see, etc. I don't know how to fully explain it, but I do believe in miracles - just not miracles that, as I said, go against the laws of nature.

You know what's fundamental to my Christianity? Belief in God and Christ and in Christ's teachings and the desire to create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth - not miracles.

What would be an example of a miracle that doesn't break natural law? And why would you attribute that particular event to divine intervention rather than, say, sheer coincidence?

---

On another, more general note, the rejection of miracles that break natural law is based on the circular argument that natural law cannot be broken. Anything that appears to break natural law either didn't happen or (if that's not a viable argument) is actually perfectly compliant with natural law - we just didn't know until the event happened that that was the case. It's an assertion that's totally immune to evidence.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Just remember this: Nothing is impossible for God.

He is omnipotent.

[Pasong Tirad]

I believe there's a rational explanation for all of it. I just don't have all the answers.


Again, as I've said, I don't have all the answers. I believe Christ is both human and divine, so that would be an easy way for me to wrap my head around his miracle-work but I personally don't buy it. The way I see it is that focusing on His miracle-work is distracting us from His message and His teachings.

Except we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to follow Christ and believe His message without miracles. The whole purpose of miracles which, almost by definition, bend or break natural law is to confirm that the message is from God. The Virgin Birth, giving sight to the blind, healing the sick, feeding the thousands, walking on water, commanding the weather, commanding nature itself, the prophecies, even the Ressurrection itself - you don't believe any of these events occurred as described in the Scriptures?

Keep in mind that unlike much of the Old Testament, the Gospels are not poetry, storytelling, metaphorical, or anything like that. They are quite clearly meant to be historical accounts of real events. If you believe that the aforementioned miracles did not occur as described, then the Gospels are filled with blatant falsehoods, and I question why you believe we should follow the teachings of some figure from an obviously false book?

First, I'm not asking you to believe what I do.

Second, again, I don't see Christ and the Gospels as focusing on his miracle-work. I focus on the message of His teachings and I try and understand what He is actually trying to say by his actions. No, I don't think His miracle-work was a way to get people to become convinced that the message is from God - imagine, for instance, if you saw somebody, today, claim to be the Son of God and perform a miracle in front of you. Will you believe it? - rather, I think the miracle-work itself is an act to convey a teaching, a message. I see a passage telling of Christ giving sight to the blind, I don't believe He actually stuffed two pairs of working eyeballs into their sockets. I believe He was able to get them to believe that He is the Word, or maybe that He gave them some other kind of metaphorical "sight." I don't claim this to be true to everyone I meet (as I believe faith and belief are very personal - the actions that are brought about because of this belief is not), but it is what I believe. My conscience can't accept anything else.

Perhaps they did occur as they did in Scripture. Perhaps Mark, Luke, Matthew and John used some artistic freedom in writing about Christ's life. I go into faith and belief with the knowledge that 1) I don't know the truth, and 2) I won't ever know the truth - but I choose to believe anyway because my conscience has decided for me. That, for me, is enough.

Okay I think we have a great misunderstanding. I said I don't believe in miracles that bend natural law, like the blind suddenly being able to see, etc. I don't know how to fully explain it, but I do believe in miracles - just not miracles that, as I said, go against the laws of nature.

You know what's fundamental to my Christianity? Belief in God and Christ and in Christ's teachings and the desire to create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth - not miracles.

What would be an example of a miracle that doesn't break natural law? And why would you attribute that particular event to divine intervention rather than, say, sheer coincidence?

Again, I interpret Scripture in a way that talks in metaphors and in a way to convey messages. When the finger is pointing at the moon, I don't focus on the finger - I actually try to look at the moon.

If, for example, I see a guy able to evade a car accident in a split-second. Do I see that as a miracle? I don't know. It depends on the circumstances, because it would lead me down a path that will have to question whether the other person who didn't miss the car accident died because God let it happen. Again, I go into all of this with the knowledge that I don't know. So, to say some things that are fundamental to my belief: I believe in the Virgin Birth and I believe in the Resurrection and the Ascension. How do I then explain these beliefs with my personal belief that miracles that bend natural law don't exist? I don't know. As I've said a number of times before: I have my God, I have my Christ. A lot of things don't make sense and as long as I act like a neighbor to all I meet, that's enough for me.

[Centuran Republic]

I've been looking a little bit into Oriental Orthodoxy. Is Miaphysitism essentially the same thing as the Chalcedonian definition, just using different terms?

[Angleter]

I've been looking a little bit into Oriental Orthodoxy. Is Miaphysitism essentially the same thing as the Chalcedonian definition, just using different terms?

Perhaps (the Orthodox especially tend to say 'yes'). It is true that the original split was caused by the Miaphysites rejecting the wording the Chalcedonian definition; but at the same time, there have been plenty of attempts over the last 1500+ years to 'clarify' the wording in a manner acceptable to both sides, and none of them have worked.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Just remember this: Nothing is impossible for God.

Technically yes, but I'd assert that are certain methods God would need to employ depending on the situation.

Could God make an 8 sided circle? Yes but not without rewriting the basic fundamental properties of the universe.

[Dravinium]

Just because people are falliable does not immediately mean the Church is. I believe the Catholic Church's doctrine is correct. That does not mean I am perfect, and am perfectly going to follow said doctrine all the time.

How can the church be infallible when the individuals who make up the church are not infallible? I have been given no reason to believe that they are not mistaken; that the doctrine is not based on greed, prejudice, political power. What's more you have no reason to trust it if you believe in Satan as a person able to tempt/deceive almost any human.

Couldn't you say that about scripture? Has any Christian ever been infallible? Nonsense.

[Salus Maior]

How can the church be infallible when the individuals who make up the church are not infallible? I have been given no reason to believe that they are not mistaken; that the doctrine is not based on greed, prejudice, political power. What's more you have no reason to trust it if you believe in Satan as a person able to tempt/deceive almost any human.

Probably because we don't believe that Satan can automatically deceive any human. He deceived Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean he's always successful.

[The Alexanderians]

How can the church be infallible when the individuals who make up the church are not infallible? I have been given no reason to believe that they are not mistaken; that the doctrine is not based on greed, prejudice, political power. What's more you have no reason to trust it if you believe in Satan as a person able to tempt/deceive almost any human.

Couldn't you say that about scripture? Has any Christian ever been infallible? Nonsense.

No but a Jew has

[Major-Tom]

Just because people are falliable does not immediately mean the Church is. I believe the Catholic Church's doctrine is correct. That does not mean I am perfect, and am perfectly going to follow said doctrine all the time.

How can the church be infallible when the individuals who make up the church are not infallible? I have been given no reason to believe that they are not mistaken; that the doctrine is not based on greed, prejudice, political power. What's more you have no reason to trust it if you believe in Satan as a person able to tempt/deceive almost any human.

I don't understand that. The Catholic Church decided that they were infallible, not the Gospels. Its the teachings of Jesus and God's will that really matters, two things we'll never fully understand anyways. So, as a Christian, I reject Catholicism, and choose to not really adhere to a denomination.

[United Marxist Nations]

How can the church be infallible when the individuals who make up the church are not infallible? I have been given no reason to believe that they are not mistaken; that the doctrine is not based on greed, prejudice, political power. What's more you have no reason to trust it if you believe in Satan as a person able to tempt/deceive almost any human.

I don't understand that. The Catholic Church decided that they were infallible, not the Gospels. Its the teachings of Jesus and God's will that really matters, two things we'll never fully understand anyways. So, as a Christian, I reject Catholicism, and choose to not really adhere to a denomination.

Christ actually does profess the infallibility of the Church when He says that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

[Nordengrund]

I don't understand that. The Catholic Church decided that they were infallible, not the Gospels. Its the teachings of Jesus and God's will that really matters, two things we'll never fully understand anyways. So, as a Christian, I reject Catholicism, and choose to not really adhere to a denomination.

Christ actually does profess the infallibility of the Church when He says that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Which church?

[Jamzmania]

Christ actually does profess the infallibility of the Church when He says that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Which church?

"The Church."

[Constantinopolis]

Christ actually does profess the infallibility of the Church when He says that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Which church?

At first, there was only one Church.

Today, there are several organizations that can plausibly claim continuity with that original Church, so we have to do the extra work of trying to figure out which of them is actually the true Church. Fortunately, however, the number of such organizations is very small: only 5 major ones, plus a few small splinter groups from some of them.

[Czechanada]

Inuit leader continues to seek justice against alleged abusive priest living in France

[Luminesa]

Inuit leader continues to seek justice against alleged abusive priest living in France

I hope they find the jerk who hurt these people.

[New confederate ramenia]

I'm in a crisis of faith right now, and I'm considering doing a "self-debate" to resolve this. I'll write the arguments for Christianity, arguments for irreligion on another, and self-debate on a few pieces of paper. Under Christian morality, would this be immoral?

[Pasong Tirad]

I'm in a crisis of faith right now, and I'm considering doing a "self-debate" to resolve this. I'll write the arguments for Christianity, arguments for irreligion on another, and self-debate on a few pieces of paper. Under Christian morality, would this be immoral?

It will depend on who you talk to. Personally, as someone who regularly jumps between Catholic and agnostic, I'd say that as long as it is what your conscience has decided, there would be nothing wrong with that. Your conscience has primacy here and if your conscience can't accept believing in the divine, then that's that.

[Lost Memories]

I'm in a crisis of faith right now, and I'm considering doing a "self-debate" to resolve this. I'll write the arguments for Christianity, arguments for irreligion on another, and self-debate on a few pieces of paper. Under Christian morality, would this be immoral?

If writing down your thoughts helps you to sort them out, that isn't wrong.

From personal experience, faith comes from inspiration from others, from looking up to good examples.
It's hard to find a rational reason or an argument for it. First, because faith isn't something you can decide to have, but something you recognize to already have. Secondly, because in most cases any, supposedly rational, argument may end up missing important elements of theology, so thinking to be able to rationalize faith alone is most of times a mistake, which only leads to incomplete results, with incomplete solutions(and maybe also an incomplete faith).
Plus, Christian morality should be about living and treasuring the community, not relying on the community when you have a problem(of any kind, not just faith ones) may be already a sign that you don't trust your community so much, and you would rather find your own solution.

I think it would be immoral to create division, by first removing yourself from others, but so long you're only sorting out your thoughts I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Just remeber to tell anyone you trust about your problems, sharing the burden with others can help to carry it better, and have more means to solve the problems which are burdening you, and also tell to someone how did you resolve what was burdening you.

[The Archregimancy]

I've been looking a little bit into Oriental Orthodoxy. Is Miaphysitism essentially the same thing as the Chalcedonian definition, just using different terms?

Perhaps (the Orthodox especially tend to say 'yes').

I rather think we're more inclined to say 'that depends'. There are shades of miaphysitism, just as there are shades of opinion within Orthodoxy.

It's true to say that the dialogue between Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodoxy and non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodoxy initiated in the 20th century has proven more positive than the dialogue between Eastern Orthodoxy and other branches of Christianity claiming direct apostolic descent, and that partial agreement over Christological terminology was reached, but moving past the agreed statements is proving complex for a range of issues, not least of which are:

1) The inability of Constantinople and [Coptic] Alexandria to speak for the entirety of their communions.

2) Concern on the part of significant segments in both communions that agreement would then mean having to revisit whether important figures who laid the foundations of their theology were in fact wrong.

3) Internal disagreement within the communions over whether the conciliatory language suggesting that miaphysitism and Chalcedonian Christology are essentially different ways of expressing the same thing are justified.

On the local level there are often encouraging signs of cooperation. The two Popes of Alexandria have agreed to recognise each other's sacraments (especially marriage) under certain circumstances; I've previously attended a parish where we had an Eritrean who was given full rights of communion under the principle of economia. But we're not quite at the stage of agreeing that miaphysitism is essentially the same thing as Chalcedonian Christianity, just with a different terminological approach.

[Pasong Tirad]

It's officially December 24 here in the Philippines, so Merry Christmas Eve to you all! I'd like to quote our national hero:

Today is Christmas Eve. Whether or not Christ was born exactly on this date is not important. But chronological accuracy has nothing to do with tonight's event. A grand genius had been born who preached truth and love; who suffered because of his mission; and on account of his sufferings the world has become better, if not saved...
- Jose Rizal's Letter to Blumentritt (24 December 1886)