The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Lord Dominator]

I must say it has been the greatest pleasure to get to know many of you over the years, and I will cherish the memories made on this thread (series of them), and NSG as a whole. Due to recent events I unfortunately will not be choosing to stay on NSG for the time being if at all any more. May God bless you all on your paths.

And may God bless you

[Tarsonis]

All Christianity teaches of a spark of divinity. The Imago Dei, and the nature of the Soul are all pursuant to this concept.

That is based on Genesis and man created in God's image.

Do you see A & E, innocent, ignorant and not even able to know that they are naked, quite stupid, as being in God's image?

Strange if you do given that God himself said and I adlib, they had to eat of the tree of all knowledge before they, became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil and having their eyes opened.

Regards
DL

The Imago Dei refers to being made in the form of God, not having the same qualities of God. God’s plan was known before the dawn of Creation. We know God has no physical form, save Christ who became man. Therefore when we say we are made in the Image of God, we’re saying we are made in the image of Christ.

You’re right that having our eyes opened, knowing of good and evil makes us like God, but in many ways that was a burden, not liberty. For what creature can bare the responsibility of God?

[Stonok]

You see god as some guy in the sky.

I see God the way reality is.

That's not a given. Christians speak and depict God as a man in the sky because it's the only thing we can truly comprehend. I think all Christians know at at least a basic level that God the Father is an invisible, all powerful energy, and little is known of his appearance is known apart from that. Indeed some Christians make the mistake of truly believing that The Father is a man or a woman, or is White or Black, or so forth, that's not because Scripture or any Ecclesiastical authority taught them that, it's just because those individuals took the paintings and allegories too seriously or misinterpreting Genesis.

[Tarsonis]

If you take everything in the Bible literally, how do you reconcile the contradictions?

If you don't everything in the Bible literally, how is one to determine what is literal and what is not?

As far as "cherry picking" goes everything in the Bible out of context, unless one were to read the entire Bible in its original languages; do I need to read and fully every understand every word to avoid eternal damnation?

The trinity (the Divine literally existing in three persons) which isn't explicitly taught in the Bible, is not logical, and is a dogma derived from extra-biblical ideas, is not easily explained (and I don't think that it can be), nor is it strictly speaking "monotheistic*.

*whether it is monotheistic or not may be a moot point, at least in my mind


What if I were to quote John 21:25, would that be cherry picking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWOqHHE4upY

Regards
DL

David Cross? A stand up commedian? That’s seriously the person you’re citing as a source?

[Stonok]

Therefore when we say we are made in the Image of God, we’re saying we are made in the image of Christ. ?

I've heard many theologians also say that when ancient writings say "in the image of" they also mean having similar characteristics in terms of personality. As in, mankind was originally made to be wise, and forgiving, and so forth, and thus was "made in the image of God".

[Tarsonis]

[

Spirituality and religion are incredibly natural. To be even more blunt, in the history of humanity and civilization, widespread atheism as we see in modern Western society (though still a minority) is decidedly unnatural and without historical precedent.

You are not reading history the way I do.

You mean he’s reading it correctly?

This shows how the ancient intelligentsia thought and it is more agnostic/atheist than theist.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

We are all born atheist with a touch of agnostic and that is why almost all of us end in following our parents religion, whatever it is, instead of seeking a real and true God.

What is natural is our tribalism and we tend to stay in our familiar tribes/religions.

Regards
DL

But the true God cannot be sought right? There is an inherent contradiction in your argument. You accuse us of believing in nothing but speculations. We are speculating because

1. God is unknowable.
2.. If God is unknowable then all we think we know about God is nothing but speculation.
3. If it’s speculation, it’s not reliable.

Therefor nothing we say about God is reliable


Now, you claim that you know the true God by seeing yourself, but your still bound by that original syllogism. What you see as God via yourself, is nothing but speculation as well, because God is unknowable, thus nothing can be known.


Both our religious premises require that God be knowable to be valid. I

[Tarsonis]

Hi all.

I wanted to asks, what's everyone's fav bible quotes, maybe life protips and the such?

I've been trying to find some to bookmark in my bible.

How about the 3 I use to explain why I call my God I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

You mean the three I’ve already shown have been pulled out of context to say something different? Oh wait you ignored that part rather than debate it.

[Tarsonis]

Therefore when we say we are made in the Image of God, we’re saying we are made in the image of Christ. ?

I've heard many theologians also say that when ancient writings say "in the image of" they also mean having similar characteristics in terms of personality. As in, mankind was originally made to be wise, and forgiving, and so forth, and thus was "made in the image of God".

It is a somewhat poetic of saying “be a reflection of” this is true but humans are so far removed from the level God that to suggest that humans have the same personality characteristics of God is just not accurate. Part of the incarnation is God experiancing Human experience. Christ had to experience the human life.

[Stonok]

I've heard many theologians also say that when ancient writings say "in the image of" they also mean having similar characteristics in terms of personality. As in, mankind was originally made to be wise, and forgiving, and so forth, and thus was "made in the image of God".

It is a somewhat poetic of saying “be a reflection of” this is true but humans are so far removed from the level God that to suggest that humans have the same personality characteristics of God is just not accurate. Part of the incarnation is God experiancing Human experience. Christ had to experience the human life.

Fair point, but you do have to remember that Adam was created in perfect communion with God and before his fall was probably far beyond the level we imagine humans as capable of. It also doesn't quite make sense to say it means "in the image of Christ" since Christ had no physical body at the time either.

[Andromeda Islands]

There is nothing "just" about eternal punishment for finite sin.
What purpose would there be for such punishment?
If someone is being good only from fear, they are being good for the wrong reason.
Why would an all wise, all loving creator create beings that are totally evil, in the first place?
Is this creator all merciful or not?
The problem of evil is not easily explained or understood.
The problem is evil, the solution is to be good.
It could be that simple.

As Nietzsche put it,

"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the
impulse to punish is powerful!"

[Northern Davincia]

There is nothing "just" about eternal punishment for finite sin.
What purpose would there be for such punishment?
If someone is being good only from fear, they are being good for the wrong reason.
Why would an all wise, all loving creator create beings that are totally evil, in the first place?
Is this creator all merciful or not?
The problem of evil is not easily explained or understood.
The problem is evil, the solution is to be good.
It could be that simple.

As Nietzsche put it,

"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the
impulse to punish is powerful!"

The creator allows the capacity for evil, but does not compel it. In the same manner that being a criminal results in imprisonment, you punish yourself with sin.

[Elenir]

Well, God did give us humans freedom, that's why we perform evil acts. I personally think its better to have free thought than to be a puppet of good. I like worship, but I prefer for it to be voluntary.

[Kowani]

Well, God did give us humans freedom, that's why we perform evil acts. I personally think its better to have free thought than to be a puppet of good. I like worship, but I prefer for it to be voluntary.

>Voluntarily
>Literal eternal suffering

See no contradictions...

[Menassa]

I don't know... John 14:6 seems pretty intolerant to me.

I think exclusive is a better word

One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

[Kowani]

I think exclusive is a better word

One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?

[Tarsonis]

It is a somewhat poetic of saying “be a reflection of” this is true but humans are so far removed from the level God that to suggest that humans have the same personality characteristics of God is just not accurate. Part of the incarnation is God experiancing Human experience. Christ had to experience the human life.

Fair point, but you do have to remember that Adam was created in perfect communion with God and before his fall was probably far beyond the level we imagine humans as capable of.

(Preface: I don't really believe in a literal Adam and literal fall, but Adam is a useful metaphor to work with in this case.)
Except Adam didn't have perfect communion with God, At least not in the way that we have communion through Christ. Adam had a perfect nature and lived in the presence of God. The Original sin wounded his human nature, and brought about his concupiscence. Christ being a vessel fully of both Human and Divine natures not only reconciled us to God, but joins our natures in perfect communion. When we say we have but one mediator who is Christ, it is far greater than his sacrifice on the Cross. Christ is everything. In every way that we are joined to God in perfect communion. In any possible way, conceivable or not, that we can commune with God, it is through Christ.

It also doesn't quite make sense to say it means "in the image of Christ" since Christ had no physical body at the time either.

Ah but remember God's plan was known before the dawn of Creation, and God exists outside of linear time. God new Christ would become Flesh,reconcile the world and join Humanity to God before the the universe even existed. So we were made in the Image of Christ, in anticipation of the Incarnation, before he ever walked the Earth. We were made in the Image of God, hundreds of thousands of years before He took Human form.

[Tarsonis]

One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?

Yes. Yes. We're all immature. But it would be terribly bad form for you to do so.

[Minzerland II]

Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.

[Tarsonis]

Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.

From the CCC

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

I may lean on that rule harder than most, but there's room for my position within the Church.

[Andromeda Islands]

One man's exclusivity is another mans intolerance.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?

I am not sure where you are going with this, but John CH. 14 standing alone suggests both a universalist and unitarian philosophy, and a gnostic atheistic one as well.

Also putting it in context, the statement was in response to a question posed by the most atheistic gnostic disciple, Thomas.

By the way, a similar narrow philosophy is often quoted, Matthew 7:13, that the way is narrow, but read that verse in context, it suggests a very different idea than "Only Christians are good" or that "Only Christianity is the true religion"
John 14 and Matthew 7 present a very different philosophy than traditional Trinitarian dogmatic orthodoxy.
There are clearly universalist and unitarian (and ironically atheist, as well) statements in the Bible, although one could argue that the Bible teaches the opposite as well. Many Christians can concede the point that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, for example it could be claimed that the "born again" idea teaches reincarnation.

Whether you see the Bible figuratively as Spong does, or in a more logical world view as atheists do, you may learn to doubt the dogma of Biblical inerrancy, which has yet to be proven and is only accepted by the narrow minority.

[Minzerland II]

Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.

From the CCC

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

I may lean on that rule harder than most, but there's room for my position within the Church.

Excuse my ignorance, but, in my flawed interpretation, doesn’t that excerpt imply Adam, Eve and a Fall in the past? I ask again that you excuse me for pressing so insistently; my knowledge of this aspect of the Catholic Faith is just lacking.

[Tarsonis]

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Can I just mention all the delicious innuendoes I can make with this?

I am not sure where you are going with this, but John CH. 14 standing alone suggests both a universalist and unitarian philosophy, and a gnostic atheistic one as well.

Standing alone AKA "out of context." So to understand it as universalist or unitarian, would be wrong because it denies the rest of the Gospel of John which is not. (And for the record, it would take some severe mental gymnastics to make John Chapter 14 Universalist even by itself. All the bits about "Believing in me," "keep my commandments" and "I am in the Father", "no one comes to the father except through me" isn't universalist at all. It's very specific.

Also putting it in context, the statement was in response to a question posed by the most atheistic gnostic disciple, Thomas.

Thomas wasn't a gnostic. There is a Gnostic gospel named for Thomas but it is a forgery. And St. Thomas Christians aren't gnostics.

By the way, a similar narrow philosophy is often quoted, Matthew 7:13, that the way is narrow, but read that verse in context, it suggests a very different idea than "Only Christians are good" or that "Only Christianity is the true religion"

John 14 and Matthew 7 present a very different philosophy than traditional Trinitarian dogmatic orthodoxy.

No the don't. They are Trinitarian dogmatic orthodoxy.

There are clearly universalist and unitarian (and ironically atheist, as well) statements in the Bible,

Which is why we understand these quotes in the whole of the biblical context, not cherry picked out. I can turn Voldemort into the hero and harry potter into the Villain, if I remove certain passages from the context of the story.

although one could argue that the Bible teaches the opposite as well. Many Christians can concede the point that not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, for example it could be claimed that the "born again" idea teaches reincarnation.



Whether you see the Bible figuratively as Spong does, or in a more logical world view as atheists do, you may learn to doubt the dogma of Biblical inerrancy, which has yet to be proven and is only accepted by the narrow minority.

Yes and no. Inerrancy requires defining. Traditionally we understand that Inerrancy to be within its intended purpose. The purpose of Scripture is to convey doctrinal truth. You can write a complete work of fiction that still accomplishes this goal. So when we view the Bible as Inerrant we are referring to its memetic property, not necessarily its propositional one.

The idea that it is propositionally inerrant is actually a relatively recent idea.

[Andromeda Islands]

Of course, the terms "god" and "goddess" are problematic in the sense that not all theists and sheists have the same concepts of what these words mean. In a figurative sense every person creates the deity in an existential way.
You can call me a "sheist" if you want (as long as you don't call me "late for dinner" haha)… but I only believe in goddess in a figurative sense and don't have a comprehensive education in sheology, nor in monosheism, but I do know that Sophia(aka true wisdom) is a good thing. So, in a totally figurative sense only, not literally I am a monosheist.

(oh and on a very important note: those who use the term "literally" to mean "figuratively" are in a figurative sense "literally" dumb,
assuming you know what I am talking about)

[Tarsonis]

From the CCC

"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

I may lean on that rule harder than most, but there's room for my position within the Church.

Excuse my ignorance, but, in my flawed interpretation, doesn’t that excerpt imply Adam, Eve and a Fall in the past? I ask again that you excuse me for pressing so insistently; my knowledge of this aspect of the Catholic Faith is just lacking.

It implies that at the beginning of human history, something went terribly wrong. It doesn't imply a literal Adam/Eve/Eden exactly as it's laid out in the text, but a real fall involving the first human beings, who ever they may have been.

I'm currently working on a propositional explanation on that, reconciling the Church's teachings about evolution and Original Sin, which in their current state can be seen as contradictory, but I won't posit it as true doctrine unless the Church approves it if I ever get around to submitting it for certification and hoping some higher ups hear it and go "yeah That's it, tell everyone that."

[Tarsonis]

Of course, the terms "god" and "goddess" are problematic in the sense that not all theists and sheists have the same concepts of what these words mean. In a figurative sense every person creates the deity in an existential way.
You can call me a "sheist" if you want (as long as you don't call me "late for dinner" haha)… but I only believe in goddess in a figurative sense and don't have a comprehensive education in sheology, nor in monosheism, but I do know that Sophia(aka true wisdom) is a good thing. So, in a totally figurative sense only, not literally I am a monosheist.

(oh and on a very important note: those who use the term "literally" to mean "figuratively" are in a figurative sense "literally" dumb,
assuming you know what I am talking about)

Ignoring the fact that Sheist is a nonsensical term, there is a difference between God and "god/goddess" God is a more or less gender neutral word, because God transcends the concept of sex and gender. god/goddess is a term for gendered polytheistic deities