The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Saint Ryvern]

It was only a tree. You’re really over thinking this

So, there's no metaphor at all? A fig tree didn't have fruits in season so Jesus threw a tantrum and killed it? Cool.

In Matthew, the cursing of the fig tree comes immediately after Jesus cleanses the temple; in Mark the fig tree episodes comes immediately before the cleansing of the temple. It is important to note that the fig tree was "in leaf" (Mark 11:13), meaning that it should have been bearing fruit. And since it was in its early stages, if it was not showing fruit while bearing leaves it was never going to produce any fruit at all, in season or not. Due to the story's placement in the gospels, many people read it and relate its meaning to the impending judgement against the temple and the unfruitful people of Israel. Like the tree, they had leaves, which were displayed via the ceremonies and practices they held up so high, but they were barren of actual goodness because their actions had nothing behind them.

[Ndaku]

I was just thinking back on this passage from the Bible:

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again". And his disciples heard him say it.

...

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Is there some metaphor here that I'm missing with the fig tree and praying? And if he wanted a fig, why didn't he just make a fig appear? Isn't he God? For that matter, why was he even hungry? Why didn't he know that the tree would have no fruits?

The Bible tells us in John 3:16-17 that God so loved the world that He became flesh so that those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life, for God didn't send Jesus to condemn the world, but that through the redemption of Jesus, one's soul can be saved. It's also said in John 1:1-5: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. He was in the beginning with God.' John continues to say in verse 14 that 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.'

Jesus was God on earth because the moment He was baptized, the spirit of God descended upon Him, but at the same time, He was flesh, like you and I. All the miracles He performed were from the spirit of God.

In regards to your question about fig trees and their meaning, this might provide some insight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figs_in_the_Bible

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

So, there's no metaphor at all? A fig tree didn't have fruits in season so Jesus threw a tantrum and killed it? Cool.

In Matthew, the cursing of the fig tree comes immediately after Jesus cleanses the temple; in Mark the fig tree episodes comes immediately before the cleansing of the temple. It is important to note that the fig tree was "in leaf" (Mark 11:13), meaning that it should have been bearing fruit. And since it was in its early stages, if it was not showing fruit while bearing leaves it was never going to produce any fruit at all, in season or not. Due to the story's placement in the gospels, many people read it and relate its meaning to the impending judgement against the temple and the unfruitful people of Israel. Like the tree, they had leaves, which were displayed via the ceremonies and practices they held up so high, but they were barren of actual goodness because their actions had nothing behind them.

Very nice. Thank you.

[Nordengrund]

So, what do you make of Romans 13? When is it alright that disobey the government?

I think we should obey the government whenever possible as long as it is not telling us to do something God forbids or not to do something God commands. However, I think it is also impossible to followed the law perfectly. How many of us drive a little bit over the speed limit everyday? There’s also a traffic law that I am technically violating, but it’s no longer enforced because it only applies to horse and buggies, and we don’t use those anymore. So, I then no there is also an element of practicality with following the law, as well.

Paul does say that if we submit to governing authorities, we have nothing to fear, and they are ordained by God to punish wrongdoers. Yet, Early Christians were persecuted for their faith even if they weren’t doing anything wrong. There’s also the question concerning governments and leaders that are tyrannical or support evil actions.

Also, what about Martin Luther King and civil disobedience. While I’m glad segregation ended, people were breaking the law and going into places they weren’t allowed. Was King right in this case, or should they have just gone along with it?

[Saint Ryvern]

So, what do you make of Romans 13? When is it alright that disobey the government?

I think we should obey the government whenever possible as long as it is not telling us to do something God forbids or not to do something God commands. However, I think it is also impossible to followed the law perfectly. How many of us drive a little bit over the speed limit everyday? There’s also a traffic law that I am technically violating, but it’s no longer enforced because it only applies to horse and buggies, and we don’t use those anymore. So, I then no there is also an element of practicality with following the law, as well.

Paul does say that if we submit to governing authorities, we have nothing to fear, and they are ordained by God to punish wrongdoers. Yet, Early Christians were persecuted for their faith even if they weren’t doing anything wrong. There’s also the question concerning governments and leaders that are tyrannical or support evil actions.

Also, what about Martin Luther King and civil disobedience. While I’m glad segregation ended, people were breaking the law and going into places they weren’t allowed. Was King right in this case, or should they have just gone along with it?

Acts 5:29, "Peter and the other disciples replied, 'We must obey God rather than men'"

If your government or ruling authority commands you to do something contrary to God's will or Word you have the right to resist. Civil disobedience is trickier, but in King's case the famous quote, which actually comes from Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all" would be the common citation to bring up. The ultimate authority we as Christians must answer to is God, not any human government. Our actions should coincide with God's will, which Romans 13 shows us sometimes means following the government he has established, but when that government becomes corrupt because of sin we must still remain true to God's will. Segregation and racism are not in line with God's will, so we have the right, the same right that the apostles had, to resist and seek to eliminate them.

[Geneviev]

So, what do you make of Romans 13? When is it alright that disobey the government?

I think we should obey the government whenever possible as long as it is not telling us to do something God forbids or not to do something God commands. However, I think it is also impossible to followed the law perfectly. How many of us drive a little bit over the speed limit everyday? There’s also a traffic law that I am technically violating, but it’s no longer enforced because it only applies to horse and buggies, and we don’t use those anymore. So, I then no there is also an element of practicality with following the law, as well.

Paul does say that if we submit to governing authorities, we have nothing to fear, and they are ordained by God to punish wrongdoers. Yet, Early Christians were persecuted for their faith even if they weren’t doing anything wrong. There’s also the question concerning governments and leaders that are tyrannical or support evil actions.

Also, what about Martin Luther King and civil disobedience. While I’m glad segregation ended, people were breaking the law and going into places they weren’t allowed. Was King right in this case, or should they have just gone along with it?

Acts 5:29, "Peter and the other disciples replied, 'We must obey God rather than men'"

If your government or ruling authority commands you to do something contrary to God's will or Word you have the right to resist. Civil disobedience is trickier, but in King's case the famous quote, which actually comes from Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all" would be the common citation to bring up. The ultimate authority we as Christians must answer to is God, not any human government. Our actions should coincide with God's will, which Romans 13 shows us sometimes means following the government he has established, but when that government becomes corrupt because of sin we must still remain true to God's will. Segregation and racism are not in line with God's will, so we have the right, the same right that the apostles had, to resist and seek to eliminate them.

How is anyone supposed to know what laws are just or unjust? Or what God's will is?

[Saint Ryvern]

Acts 5:29, "Peter and the other disciples replied, 'We must obey God rather than men'"

If your government or ruling authority commands you to do something contrary to God's will or Word you have the right to resist. Civil disobedience is trickier, but in King's case the famous quote, which actually comes from Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all" would be the common citation to bring up. The ultimate authority we as Christians must answer to is God, not any human government. Our actions should coincide with God's will, which Romans 13 shows us sometimes means following the government he has established, but when that government becomes corrupt because of sin we must still remain true to God's will. Segregation and racism are not in line with God's will, so we have the right, the same right that the apostles had, to resist and seek to eliminate them.

How is anyone supposed to know what laws are just or unjust? Or what God's will is?

Thorough study of the Bible and frequent prayer on the subject.

[Lower Nubia]

Acts 5:29, "Peter and the other disciples replied, 'We must obey God rather than men'"

If your government or ruling authority commands you to do something contrary to God's will or Word you have the right to resist. Civil disobedience is trickier, but in King's case the famous quote, which actually comes from Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all" would be the common citation to bring up. The ultimate authority we as Christians must answer to is God, not any human government. Our actions should coincide with God's will, which Romans 13 shows us sometimes means following the government he has established, but when that government becomes corrupt because of sin we must still remain true to God's will. Segregation and racism are not in line with God's will, so we have the right, the same right that the apostles had, to resist and seek to eliminate them.

How is anyone supposed to know what laws are just or unjust? Or what God's will is?

There is the 2,000 years of prior Christian understanding on the topic, usually what the government demands in the 21st century on moral proceedings, are in line (laws on murder, rape) or perfected (ultimately obeying God rather than man) and made true (moral ban on abortion) by the Church. From martyrs killed by pagan empires in the 1st century, to martyrs killed by the pagan empires in the 21st century.

Ecclesisates 1:9; "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

[Diopolis]

So, what do you make of Romans 13? When is it alright that disobey the government?

I think we should obey the government whenever possible as long as it is not telling us to do something God forbids or not to do something God commands. However, I think it is also impossible to followed the law perfectly. How many of us drive a little bit over the speed limit everyday? There’s also a traffic law that I am technically violating, but it’s no longer enforced because it only applies to horse and buggies, and we don’t use those anymore. So, I then no there is also an element of practicality with following the law, as well.

Paul does say that if we submit to governing authorities, we have nothing to fear, and they are ordained by God to punish wrongdoers. Yet, Early Christians were persecuted for their faith even if they weren’t doing anything wrong. There’s also the question concerning governments and leaders that are tyrannical or support evil actions.

Also, what about Martin Luther King and civil disobedience. While I’m glad segregation ended, people were breaking the law and going into places they weren’t allowed. Was King right in this case, or should they have just gone along with it?

Acts 5:29, "Peter and the other disciples replied, 'We must obey God rather than men'"

If your government or ruling authority commands you to do something contrary to God's will or Word you have the right to resist. Civil disobedience is trickier, but in King's case the famous quote, which actually comes from Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all" would be the common citation to bring up. The ultimate authority we as Christians must answer to is God, not any human government. Our actions should coincide with God's will, which Romans 13 shows us sometimes means following the government he has established, but when that government becomes corrupt because of sin we must still remain true to God's will. Segregation and racism are not in line with God's will, so we have the right, the same right that the apostles had, to resist and seek to eliminate them.

A corollary to this I would say is that Christian doctrine does not make a distinction between civil disobedience and active resistance, which means civil disobedience is not permissible simply out of protest.

[Guelder]

Hey and early happy Pentecost,

what do you think of baptizing yourself? I mean, i am still not baptized and i am thinking about baptizing myself, and since i didn't read anywhere in the bible about that you should baptized by anyone, if i do baptize myself, am i then a real Mormon, or am i still a unbaptized Mormon? And if i can, how should i baptize myself if i don't have a bathtub?

[Luminesa]

Hey and early happy Pentecost,

what do you think of baptizing yourself? I mean, i am still not baptized and i am thinking about baptizing myself, and since i didn't read anywhere in the bible about that you should baptized by anyone, if i do baptize myself, am i then a real Mormon, or am i still a unbaptized Mormon? And if i can, how should i baptize myself if i don't have a bathtub?

Well in every instance of Baptism in the Bible, the people get baptized by someone else. They don’t just do it to themselves.

[Lost Memories]

Hey and early happy Pentecost,

what do you think of baptizing yourself? I mean, i am still not baptized and i am thinking about baptizing myself, and since i didn't read anywhere in the bible about that you should baptized by anyone, if i do baptize myself, am i then a real Mormon, or am i still a unbaptized Mormon? And if i can, how should i baptize myself if i don't have a bathtub?

Talking in general, being christian is about living in a community, and having a sense of community, baptism is one of the many rituals which mark the entrace in a community. So someone baptising themselves is a nonsense. You can't be christian without a community. Just reading a book doesn't make you a christian.

[Lower Nubia]

Hey and early happy Pentecost,

what do you think of baptizing yourself? I mean, i am still not baptized and i am thinking about baptizing myself, and since i didn't read anywhere in the bible about that you should baptized by anyone, if i do baptize myself, am i then a real Mormon, or am i still a unbaptized Mormon? And if i can, how should i baptize myself if i don't have a bathtub?

Unus Christianus, nullus Christianus.

[Guelder]

Hey and early happy Pentecost,

what do you think of baptizing yourself? I mean, i am still not baptized and i am thinking about baptizing myself, and since i didn't read anywhere in the bible about that you should baptized by anyone, if i do baptize myself, am i then a real Mormon, or am i still a unbaptized Mormon? And if i can, how should i baptize myself if i don't have a bathtub?

Unus Christianus, nullus Christianus.

Huh?

[Lower Nubia]

Unus Christianus, nullus Christianus.

Huh?

The Christian faith is built upon the communion of believers as the Church. Which is why you can’t baptise yourself, because the Church always exist as more than one person.

[Auze]

Hey and early happy Pentecost,

what do you think of baptizing yourself? I mean, i am still not baptized and i am thinking about baptizing myself, and since i didn't read anywhere in the bible about that you should baptized by anyone, if i do baptize myself, am i then a real Mormon, or am i still a unbaptized Mormon? And if i can, how should i baptize myself if i don't have a bathtub?

I am just going to take from the Wikipedia page:

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), baptism has the main purpose of remitting the sins of the participant. It is followed by confirmation, which inducts the person into membership in the church and constitutes a baptism with the Holy Spirit. Latter-day Saints believe that baptism must be by full immersion, and by a precise ritualized ordinance: if some part of the participant is not fully immersed, or the ordinance was not recited verbatim, the ritual must be repeated.[210] It typically occurs in a baptismal font.

In addition, members of the LDS Church do not believe a baptism is valid unless it is performed by a Latter-day Saint one who has proper authority (a priest or elder).[211] Authority is passed down through a form of apostolic succession. All new converts to the faith must be baptized or re-baptized. Baptism is seen as symbolic both of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection[212] and is also symbolic of the baptized individual discarding their "natural" self and donning a new identity as a disciple of Jesus.

[The Archregimancy]

Huh?

The Christian faith is built upon the communion of believers as the Church. Which is why you can’t baptise yourself, because the Church always exist as more than one person.

I've read an argument from a respectable Orthodox theologian that, in exceptionally extreme circumstances, it might be permissible for someone wanting to become Orthodox to be temporarily baptised not just by a non-Orthodox layperson, but by a non-Christian. Those circumstances are so unusual (they're of the apocalyptic 'every Orthodox priest in a 2000 km radius has been wiped out by rampaging hordes, and you're living in hiding from the forces of evil on the side of a remote mountain with no one but yourself and the world's last Hindu for company, but have suddenly been miraculously overcome by the Holy Spirit' variety) that they would never occur for anyone (I would hope) who reads this thread. But even while postulating this exceptionally unlikely hypothetical, the possibility of self-baptism was never considered; because the underlying assumption is it's impossible.

[Lower Nubia]

The Christian faith is built upon the communion of believers as the Church. Which is why you can’t baptise yourself, because the Church always exist as more than one person.

I've read an argument from a respectable Orthodox theologian that, in exceptionally extreme circumstances, it might be permissible for someone wanting to become Orthodox to be temporarily baptised not just by a non-Orthodox layperson, but by a non-Christian. Those circumstances are so unusual (they're of the apocalyptic 'every Orthodox priest in a 2000 km radius has been wiped out by rampaging hordes, and you're living in hiding from the forces of evil on the side of a remote mountain with no one but yourself and the world's last Hindu for company, but have suddenly been miraculously overcome by the Holy Spirit' variety) that they would never occur for anyone (I would hope) who reads this thread. But even while postulating this exceptionally unlikely hypothetical, the possibility of self-baptism was never considered; because the underlying assumption is it's impossible.

I’m thinking a Matt Damon Martian scenario.

[Diopolis]

I've read an argument from a respectable Orthodox theologian that, in exceptionally extreme circumstances, it might be permissible for someone wanting to become Orthodox to be temporarily baptised not just by a non-Orthodox layperson, but by a non-Christian. Those circumstances are so unusual (they're of the apocalyptic 'every Orthodox priest in a 2000 km radius has been wiped out by rampaging hordes, and you're living in hiding from the forces of evil on the side of a remote mountain with no one but yourself and the world's last Hindu for company, but have suddenly been miraculously overcome by the Holy Spirit' variety) that they would never occur for anyone (I would hope) who reads this thread. But even while postulating this exceptionally unlikely hypothetical, the possibility of self-baptism was never considered; because the underlying assumption is it's impossible.

I’m thinking a Matt Damon Martian scenario.

It is the teaching of the church that baptism, for validity, must be conducted by another person. However, it is the majority opinion of theologians that desire for baptism might take the place of baptism in one who has no access to the real thing- eg the catechumen who is in a deadly car wreck on the way to his baptism.

[Stonok]

Is it a sin to harbor involuntary romantic feelings for someone who already has a partner?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Is it a sin to harbor involuntary romantic feelings for someone who already has a partner?

Yes. Sin is an inescapable part of our mortal lives, and, while it must be combated, there is a reason God is all-forgiving.

[Luminesa]

Is it a sin to harbor involuntary romantic feelings for someone who already has a partner?

It’s not a sin, per say, as long as you don’t act on it to try and pull them apart in any way. Rather, you should pray for the person you’ve fallen in love with and for their partner, for their peace and happiness. Even tiny acts of charity can transform your heart and the way you view love. Every moment is an opportunity to give something or someone important in your life to God. :3

[Luminesa]

I've read an argument from a respectable Orthodox theologian that, in exceptionally extreme circumstances, it might be permissible for someone wanting to become Orthodox to be temporarily baptised not just by a non-Orthodox layperson, but by a non-Christian. Those circumstances are so unusual (they're of the apocalyptic 'every Orthodox priest in a 2000 km radius has been wiped out by rampaging hordes, and you're living in hiding from the forces of evil on the side of a remote mountain with no one but yourself and the world's last Hindu for company, but have suddenly been miraculously overcome by the Holy Spirit' variety) that they would never occur for anyone (I would hope) who reads this thread. But even while postulating this exceptionally unlikely hypothetical, the possibility of self-baptism was never considered; because the underlying assumption is it's impossible.

I’m thinking a Matt Damon Martian scenario.

Alien shows up like, “HaLLo EaRThlINg JeSUs sAiD I shOUld bAPtIZE yOU.” And then you freak out.

[Tarsonis]

Is it a sin to harbor involuntary romantic feelings for someone who already has a partner?

What UMN said, but as the priest said to me when I asked him, cut yourself some slack. Feelings are involuntary, as long as you recognize them for what they are and act appropriately, you’re alright.

[Ndaku]

Great questions and great answers! I learn a lot from you guys!