Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Colin Michael on March 27, 2009, 08:46:23 PM
-
Hypothetically speaking, must all Christians be heroes?
-
I think the idea is that Heroes are people who would venture to bring the lost into salvation. If you're not a Christian then you don't have a desire to see others brought to salvation.
-
Well, what I meant is that, in the same way that we have "evil" pharisees, we have could hypothetically have "evil" Christians.
-
You mean like Joel Olsteen?
-
You mean like Joel Olsteen?
Or Benny Hinn, or Bob Larson, or Jim Jones, or Arminus; take your pick.
.
-
I smell a new card idea...
-
I guess if we have a card called "Christian Suing Another" a "Suing Christian" could technically be an Evil Character.
-
We have evil Christians in the game, and they are evil characters. Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, but fell away. Same with Simon the Sorceror and Demas. It seems that the designers of the game agree with scripture, as I read it, that one ceases to be among the "saved" once they start down a dark path of sin and refuse to repent. (In Simon's case I feel he did fully repent, but that's beside the point).
-
Can of worms: Open
-
The can was opened a long time ago. Now there is mold growing out of the can.
-
We have evil Christians in the game, and they are evil characters. Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, but fell away. Same with Simon the Sorceror and Demas. It seems that the designers of the game agree with scripture, as I read it, that one ceases to be among the "saved" once they start down a dark path of sin and refuse to repent. (In Simon's case I feel he did fully repent, but that's beside the point).
Well, technically, anyone who leaves would have been never elect to begin with.
-
You're not part of the group.
-
At least I've chosen a side.
FWIW, the dividing line between good characters and evil characters seems driven more by whether those people move the lost towards salvation, and not necessarily whether they are classified within a specific group. Various Sadducees and Pharisees, for example, are good or evil, as well as certain Israelite/Judean kings.
-
this thread is both provocative and 100% all american FAIL
-
Jesus called Peter "satan" so maybe Peter should be an evil character...JK!
-
And we have at least one character who is both good AND evil (King Saul) So you are a hero if you move people toward salvation and an EC if you move them away from salvation.
I'd like to see an evil King Solomon come up as well. Toward the end of his life I wouldn't call him a shining beacon of morality, but most christian believers tend to always gloss over those parts.
-
Solomon is an interesting character. I think you may actually need 3 Solomons! Young King Solomon started off great, and yes, he pretty quickly went bad, with all his foreign wives, idol worship, and incredible wealth. But if you are of the persuasion that I am, that he wrote Ecclesiastes and most of Proverbs right before he died, it seems to me that Solomon has turned toward righteousness again. I think it was because he looked back on everything he had accomplished and saw that it was all "vanity", but in Proverbs especially I get the sense that it is a father trying to tell his son not to make the same mistakes that he did, and he probably was concerned about what kind of king his spoiled brat Reheboam would be. But maybe I'm romanticizing it too much. It sure would help if the New Testament gave some indication to Solomon's final resting place. Note though that in Hebrews 11 you have Samson mentioned among the heroes of faith, and he sure did some unsavory things too! God's mercy is astounding, and I am living proof :)
Just my two cents.
-
Well, I mean, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and such were post-exilic, but I understand what you mean.
-
Um, who exactly are you suggesting wrote Ecclesiastes and Proverbs "post-exile", and how could anything said in that book apply to such a person?
Ecclesiastes 1:1 - "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem." What son of David was king in Jerusalem after the exile?
Ecclesiastes 2:9-10 - "So I became great and excelled more than all who were before me in Jersualem. Also my wisdom remained with me. Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure..."
As for Proverbs, 1:1 - "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:" Chapter 30 is the words of Agur, and chapter 31 the words of King Lemuel (that his mother taught him).
Add to all of this passages like 1 Kings 4:32 "He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five." (etc, etc)
I promise I am not trying to start an argument, and I believe the words to be inspired by God whomever the authors were. But if we are to believe they are inspired, aren't we also obligated to believe who they say wrote them?
This is the first I had ever heard of these words being written "post-exile" (assuming you are referring to the exile hundreds of years after Solomon, where God's people were deported to Babylon for 70 years).
-
Don't listen to Chancellor Colin. He's a sith.
-
Don't listen to Chancellor Colin. He's a sith.
Wouldn't a sith believe in absolutes?
Believe the words to be inspired by God whomever the authors were.
You're entitled to your opinion there. The differences between Jesus' geneologies, the story of the annointing at Bethany, and many other inconsistancies in the gospels alone would leave your argument for infallibility on pretty shaky ground.
This is the first I had ever heard of these words being written "post-exile" (assuming you are referring to the exile hundreds of years after Solomon, where God's people were deported to Babylon for 70 years).
After the return from exile, the prophetic voice went silent. Apocolyptic and wisdom liturature were the replacements.
aren't we also obligated to believe who they say wrote them?
Was Ezra there for Genesis? Just because the wisdom liturature was compiled post-exilic doesn't mean that they weren't taken from original quotes from Solomon. It also follows that the Zerubabel temple priests would put "He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five" in their history books that they wrote around the same time.
Also, how would you explain something like Job? If Job supposedly lived before Abraham, how could post-exilic writers give an infallible account?
-
Collin, first of all, there are more than one definition on the infallibility of the gospel. Second, the wote you pulled did not mention infallibility it mentioned inspiration which is a totally different thing.
thirdly, who is to say the proverbs and Psalms were not written pre-exile but compliled by post-exile editors?
and about Job, well, i do not believe in a litteral job so im on your side there, but your argument makes suppositions that others would not. They would say that Job was written in the time period it records, and then compiled or edited in the post exillic period.
I understand where you are going here, but you are making leaps of logic based on assumptions that you need to explain or at least point to your proof or reasons for doing so.
Yes, wisdom literature has a much different textual feel to it and it is written in a much different way that betrays its mesopotamian influences, but most people dont have the benefit of extensive textual criticism under their belt.
plus, the case is not as cut and dry as you assume.
-
I always laugh at the lunacy of a jedi saying the absolute statement "only the Sith deal in absolutes."
-
Believe the words to be inspired by God whomever the authors were.
You're entitled to your opinion there. The differences between Jesus' geneologies, the story of the annointing at Bethany, and many other inconsistancies in the gospels alone would leave your argument for infallibility on pretty shaky ground.
You're also entitled to your opinion Colin, but I'll prefer the "shaky ground" of trusting God's Word to your "solid rock" of whatever Biblical scholar you happen to be learning about in college currently. There are no "inconsistencies in the gospels", only nuances and paradoxes.
Also, how would you explain something like Job? If Job supposedly lived before Abraham, how could post-exilic writers give an infallible account?
My belief in the infallibility of scripture rests in God protecting His message to mankind, not based on who lived when :)
-
Collin, first of all, there are more than one definition on the infallibility of the gospel. Second, the wote you pulled did not mention infallibility it mentioned inspiration which is a totally different thing.
thirdly, who is to say the proverbs and Psalms were not written pre-exile but compliled by post-exile editors?
and about Job, well, i do not believe in a litteral job so im on your side there, but your argument makes suppositions that others would not. They would say that Job was written in the time period it records, and then compiled or edited in the post exillic period.
I understand where you are going here, but you are making leaps of logic based on assumptions that you need to explain or at least point to your proof or reasons for doing so.
Yes, wisdom literature has a much different textual feel to it and it is written in a much different way that betrays its mesopotamian influences, but most people dont have the benefit of extensive textual criticism under their belt.
plus, the case is not as cut and dry as you assume.
Well, I don't think it's a faulty appeal to authority to say that the majority of Biblical scholars support everything I just said, is it?
I mean, I don't exactly have the time or resources to pull out all of the Sumerian/Babylonian syncrontisms (though I did just write an interesting paper on it).
-
Collin, first of all, there are more than one definition on the infallibility of the gospel. Second, the wote you pulled did not mention infallibility it mentioned inspiration which is a totally different thing.
thirdly, who is to say the proverbs and Psalms were not written pre-exile but compliled by post-exile editors?
and about Job, well, i do not believe in a litteral job so im on your side there, but your argument makes suppositions that others would not. They would say that Job was written in the time period it records, and then compiled or edited in the post exillic period.
I understand where you are going here, but you are making leaps of logic based on assumptions that you need to explain or at least point to your proof or reasons for doing so.
Yes, wisdom literature has a much different textual feel to it and it is written in a much different way that betrays its mesopotamian influences, but most people dont have the benefit of extensive textual criticism under their belt.
plus, the case is not as cut and dry as you assume.
Well, I don't think it's a faulty appeal to authority to say that the majority of Biblical scholars support everything I just said, is it?
Colin, for a philosopher, you have a hard time debating. Where did I accuse you of a "faulty appeal to athourity" in my passage? I merely said you made "leaps of logic based on assumptions that you need to explain" I didn't say they were faulty, I just said you were basically ambushing people out of nowhere claiming something without explaining why.
I mean, I don't exactly have the time or resources to pull out all of the Sumerian/Babylonian syncrontisms (though I did just write an interesting paper on it).
Yeah, but you should probably give us a taste if you are going to drop a bomb like that. and by the way, I would be inredibly interested in reading that paper if you woudn't mind forwarding it to me. I love that kind of stuff. PM me if that is OK with you.
-
Where did I accuse you of a "faulty appeal to athourity" in my passage?
I wasn't implying that you accused me, I was just citing an ethos besides my own for something that I do not have the information to argue.
I would be inredibly interested in reading that paper if you woudn't mind forwarding it to me. I love that kind of stuff. PM me if that is OK with you.
I will definitely do so. Be warned, it's very theoretical and is more of a work of "philosophy of religion" than of Biblical exegesis, I definitely mean to expand it. It explores the origins of the philosophical origins of the two radically different viewsets that finally evolved into two completely different religions around 90 AD (Christianity and Judeaism).
-
I always laugh at the lunacy of a jedi saying the absolute statement "only the Sith deal in absolutes."
Especially when the Sith consider their philosophy a "larger view of the Force", in other words, obfuscation through subjectivism.
-
I always laugh at the lunacy of a jedi saying the absolute statement "only the Sith deal in absolutes."
Especially when the Sith consider their philosophy a "larger view of the Force", in other words, obfuscation through subjectivism.
Do explain.
-
Hypothetically speaking, must all Christians be heroes?
lol i dont think joab should be a hero cause he was a jerk he killed absalom whendavid told him not to. cause absalom got his hair caught up in a tree (dont ask me how you do that!) and joab killed him any ways. :-\ if you ask me he should be brown/red person.
Well, I mean, David took a census of Israel when Joab told him not to so I guess it's all even.
-
Do explain.
What do I need to explain? the Emperor told Anakin that he adopts, quote, "a larger view of the Force". The Jedi are the "narrow thinkers" and the Sith are the "open-minded ones".
From a certain point of view.
-
Do explain.
What do I need to explain? the Emperor told Anakin that he adopts, quote, "a larger view of the Force". The Jedi are the "narrow thinkers" and the Sith are the "open-minded ones".
From a certain point of view.
So it would be like modernists vs post-modernists perhaps?
-
Robert Filmer would be proud.
-
Lets just say that Christians still sin. Hey, "Let it be" by the Beatles just started playing on the radio.
-
why? and who is robert filmer...?
a guy who films something named "Bob" :D
-
We have evil Christians in the game, and they are evil characters. Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, but fell away. Same with Simon the Sorceror and Demas. It seems that the designers of the game agree with scripture, as I read it, that one ceases to be among the "saved" once they start down a dark path of sin and refuse to repent. (In Simon's case I feel he did fully repent, but that's beside the point).
Well, technically, anyone who leaves would have been never elect to begin with.
Colin, I'm grateful to see some real Biblicists on this board...wow most believers don't even understand election well enough to say that.
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)
-
:rollin:
-
:miss:
-
You missed Mr. Ogian calling Colin a "real Biblicist," while many people on the boards know him for not necessarily adhering to the Bible as truth.
-
You missed Mr. Ogian calling Colin a "real Biblicist," while many people on the boards know him for not necessarily adhering to the Bible as truth.
and the irony is he claims he's "christian" when he clearly doesn't act like one
-
And the irony is that you are going against the Bible by putting down a fellow Christian and making claims that aren't true. :-\
No, Colin isn't "orthodox"... neither was Martin Luther. And he is still a Christian, I do believe. Even if he doesn't believe some things that about 99% of Christians do.
-
There's a large percentage of Christians who hold the same hermeneutical view of the Bible as I do, the Nazarenes for example. Also, most college professors and scholars will hold a similar view to mine. Many of you received the more extreme end as I shifted from my sola scriptura beliefs to the contextualist system I now adhere to, as I worked out most of the thought processes involved in discussions on this board and others.
If "real Biblicist" is to mean "Biblical scholar" as opposed to "Biblical fundamentalist", then I'd consider it high praise coming from someone getting their masters in theology.
-
There's a large percentage of Christians who hold the same hermeneutical view of the Bible as I do, the Nazarenes for example.
Thats me!
-
There's a large percentage of Christians who hold the same hermeneutical view of the Bible as I do, the Nazarenes for example. Also, most college professors and scholars will hold a similar view to mine. Many of you received the more extreme end as I shifted from my sola scriptura beliefs to the contextualist system I now adhere to, as I worked out most of the thought processes involved in discussions on this board and others.
If "real Biblicist" is to mean "Biblical scholar" as opposed to "Biblical fundamentalist", then I'd consider it high praise coming from someone getting their masters in theology.
I was going by the first definition actually, so no offense:
Bib⋅li⋅cist /ˈbɪbləsɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bib-luh-sist] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who interprets the Bible literally.
2. a Biblical scholar.
-
i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD
-
i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD
You don't believe it's literal? What about Daniel? What about Ezekial? What about Hebrews?
-
i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD
You don't believe it's literal? What about Daniel? What about Ezekial? What about Hebrews?
What about the parables?
-
i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD
You don't believe it's literal? What about Daniel? What about Ezekial? What about Hebrews?
What about the parables?
Those could be taken litteraly to an extent.
-
i was a biblicist cause i interpreted it literally with the book of revelation XD
You don't believe it's literal? What about Daniel? What about Ezekial? What about Hebrews?
What about the parables?
Those could be taken litteraly to an extent.
Um...okay...lol.
-
"Literalist" isn't a good word.
"Fundamentalist" fits better: one who takes the Bible to mean exactly what it says as if it is God speaking directly to every given context.
A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time). A contextualist would look at how Paul addressed specific issues and from that speculate Paul's mindset, lifestyle, and personal theological views. A contextualist also would look at the gospels not as much as the words of Jesus but as the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, or John, and identify possible biases as well as the historical events that may have caused each of them to write with different perspectives (for example, Christianity isn't as anti-pharisee until after the fall of the temple; Matthew focuses on Jesus being the Jewish Messiah while Luke focuses on Jesus being the saviour of Jew, Greek, gentile, woman, and slave).
-
"A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time)."
Just so I'm clear, you don't claim to be a Christian, correct?
-
"A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time)."
Just so I'm clear, you don't claim to be a Christian, correct?
Where would you draw that conclusion?
-
Where would you draw that conclusion?
I think she was basing that comment on what others have said, not necessarily on what you have said. It seems to me that she was looking for verification from you directly.
-
Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with; however, my own belief system contains elements by which one could easily it as a "Christian" belief system (i.e. a trinitarian view of God, sanctification/justification, faith, causual relationships between reaping/sowing, a similar eschatology, and compatible free-will and determinism) although there may be other elements that would probably be frowned upon by the stereotype (i.e. ultra-morality/amorality, post-modernism, human mortality, and other things).
I don't think faith in the Bible (or claiming that it was "written by God" for all of time), belief in the the rapture/antichrist, or anything along those lines can be claimed as part of "being-a-christian" as much as it is just current pop-Christian trends
You could say that I view the same doctrine through an individualist lens: constructed out of my own language and understanding.
-
Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with...
I was sad to read this. I know that I said that your path would lead you away from Christ in the next 10 years, but I didn't know that you were already at a point of disassociating yourself from being "Christian".
-
Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with...
I was sad to read this. I know that I said that your path would lead you away from Christ in the next 10 years, but I didn't know that you were already at a point of disassociating yourself from being "Christian".
Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?
EDIT: In fact, this seems that it very easily will become a self fulfilling prophesy.
-
Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?
Not actually considering that I didn't prophesy it for my "self" but for someone else. However, I'm still hoping that at some point you will actually prove me wrong :) All it takes is for you to come to a place that you lose faith in your ability to reason being the ultimate source of truth, and to return to your trust in God's Word that you had as a child.
-
Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?
Not actually considering that I didn't prophesy it for my "self" but for someone else. However, I'm still hoping that at some point you will actually prove me wrong :) All it takes is for you to come to a place that you lose faith in your ability to reason being the ultimate source of truth, and to return to your trust in God's Word that you had as a child.
By having the prejudgement that I would fall away from Christ, you now posite my actions to support your theory which changes your reaction towards me, which in turn change my response to you, and eventually leads to your prejudgement being fulfilled.
I personally don't see any merit in having an incorrect view, nor see anything "better" that comes out of having that view.
-
I am disturbed.
Not because of Colins revelation, but because of much of the behavior of others that Colin has had to endure. While I know and understand that none of us "pushed" Colin into his present viewpoint, he seems to have journeyed there on his own and that is his choice, it seems painfully clear that many people have used this board to try to 'browbeat" or riducule and shame Colin into what they consider an acceptable belief system.
The problem is that Christianity carries with it many "flavors" of believe, some liberal, some conservative and many on a sliding scale in between. Why it is that we often "insist" that our belief is better or "more perfect" than others continues to amaze and sadden me.
I can't help but wonder that, while Colin himself is responsible for his own ideas and beliefs, that perhaps we on this board did not help him by giving him a viable "alternative" too the ideas he was embracing. If we view this as "Colin leaving the faith" then I also view it as, many on these boards have "shut the door behind him."
This really bothers me. Have others gotten this impression or am I the only one? Does this bother other people or am I the only one? Why do we insist on attacking those who carry different beliefs than us? Are we that terrified of dissention that we must destroy it when it rears its head? And if our actions are truly based in Fear, then is that the appropriate reaction since "perfect Love casts out Fear?"
-
@ Prof: I'm not going to speak for Colin, but I see where he may shy away from the "label" of "Christian". Of course, I may not like the label for other reasons. 80% of Americans feel that they are "Christian" and yet our country is in trouble. So I like the term "committed Christian." But labels in general can be dangerous.
@ Crustpope: I wonder if you may be misreading Prof's intentions. (I can't speak for others because I don't know them as well.) We both know Prof personally, and we know that he is not malicious and IMO not a judgmental person. I think in his zeal and passion that he may come off that way or pushy but I think he is motivated by 2 things.
1. He cares for Colin (and for most people, in fact)
2. He wants to address heresy.
I don't think either of those points are motivated by fear or "killing" dissension. The Bible encourages in multiple passages to deal with heresy and a brother in error. (Now this is where people may disagree about who is in error.) He feels that Colin is in error about his belief/view/outlook of the Bible, and he hopes to correct it out of concern for Colin's welfare and not fear of his ideas.
But then again, I'm not Prof.
-
There is only one perfect view. God knows Himself and knows us better than we can ever hope to know Him or to know ourselves. Which person's view is closest to perfect, I am not certain. In humility I conceed that.
However, the Bible talks many times about the arrogance of "doing what is right in your own eyes" or "relying on our own understanding."
If I err, it will be on the side of taking the Bible and the teachings of the church too literally, and not mixing in enough of my own thoughts about how I think this all works.
I don't think it is rude to encourage others to be as cautious. I should not do it in a rude way, but there is a place for dissenting with Colin's views.
-
@ Crustpope: I wonder if you may be misreading Prof's intentions.
While my post came soon after Prof's, he was not one of the people to whom I was reffering. Other than a few posts, which I likely misinterpreted, I have seen Prof's interactions with Caleb to be encouraging, but there are other, less mature people posting who disturb me. my hope is that any non-christian who stumbles upon these boards judge us not to harshly because of their words.
I don't think it is rude to encourage others to be as cautious. I should not do it in a rude way, but there is a place for dissenting with Colin's views.
Im not talking about encouraging other so be as cautious, I am talking about those who continually tell Colin that he "isn't a christian if he believes such and such," or people who, through thier incredulity ask quesitons or make assumptions such as "all Christians should be like X." These type of actions tend too exclude people from the body of believers instead of inviting them to become a greater part of the body.
Its almost as if some people act like "if you arent like me, then I am going to brow beat you and berate you until you either A) come around or B) leave for good." While debate and encouragement to see different (better?) views is fine, Berating someone in order to "convert" them to your viewpoint will never win any souls or encourage any one to become a stronger christian. Even if someone ends up agreeing with you, they likely did so because they are just tired of getting beat up and their "faith" will be like the seeds landing on the path, where they are trampled by the feet of men.
I encourage debate, so long as it is in a spirit of love and encouragement. Some of what I have seen, though, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination fit into this category. Those are the comments and people I am adressing.
-
While I'm pretty sure that I agree with your intent, I want to be doubly sure that I understand.
Is there room in your position for Paul's command to excommunicate (i.e. have nothing to do with some in the church who repeatedly sin and are unrepentant, or who mislead others with false teachings about Christ)?
Or is "inviting them to be a greater part of the body" more important than presenting a spotless bride to Christ?
I don't put Colin in that category by any means. I'm just wanting to see where you stand in principle.
-
Is there room in your position for Paul's command to excommunicate (i.e. have nothing to do with some in the church who repeatedly sin and are unrepentant, or who mislead others with false teachings about Christ)?
in principle, yes I agree with it. But I do not believe that excommunication should be a permanent state and I am not sure that paul meant for it to be that way. I am also not sure as to how best this process would take place.
I do believe that we should warn people against destructive behavior or ideas but always leave room for God's Grace to let them back in.
-
I do believe that we should warn people against destructive behavior or ideas but always leave room for God's Grace to let them back in.
I think Paul addresses both in the letters to the Corinthians. He states that the church should not ignore the man that is in continual sin and that he must leave since he displayed no remorse. Between the two letters they kick him out and then would not let him back in. In letter 2, Paul encourages the church to let him back in because he exhibited a heart change (to release the ban if you will). So I think both are acceptable in certain circumstances.
-
I agree. In fact, I think that the excommunication (when a chance to return is offered) can act as a catalyst for a heart change. It can present the sinner/false teacher with a crisis moment where he can allow his hard heart to be penetrated by the Holy Spirit, thus giving him the opportunity to repent.
Without the excommunication, his sin or false teaching could cause a cancer in that church.
-
I don't know if I'm smart enough to create my own personal theology out of whole cloth, but I am smart enough not to trust my limited individual knowledge, limited experiential knowledge, biases that direct my thinking, external influences that have greater impact due to the limited audience (one), and so forth. Things like that make it a very dangerous proposition for me to ignore thousands of years of theological study and go my own way, on a philosophy built on my own ideas and towards my own ends.
I can appreciate what Matt is trying to say, and I've not wanted to speak in such a way that gives Colin a helpful push out the door, but the fact of the matter is that he has not seemed terribly receptive to the concept of Christianity being a bigger tent than what his experience shows, nor enthusiastic about the idea of working within the system to revive and redirect the church. So now genuine Christians have to suffer not only from the people within the church that give us a bad name, but also the otherwise good and well-intentioned souls that leave us to fend for ourselves. The church will struggle to deal with either of these impediments; I greatly fear that the combination of the two may destroy it for generations to come.
-
So now genuine Christians have to suffer not only from the people within the church that give us a bad name, but also the otherwise good and well-intentioned souls that leave us to fend for ourselves. The church will struggle to deal with either of these impediments; I greatly fear that the combination of the two may destroy it for generations to come.
Schaef, it really depends on your definition of the Church. Remember (which I'm sure you do which is why I'm curious of your definition) that Jesus promised that the gates of Hell could not stand up to it. Plus, Satan has been trying to bring down the "Church" for a couple of millennium. Some of the problems back in NT times still happen today. So that is why I ask: what definition of church gets destroyed?
-
The collective, organized American church(es).
When Jesus prophesied about The Chruch (tm), He meant that the good guys are going to win. Of that I have no doubt. But in the meanwhile, I have deep concerns about the ability of the organized church to continue in America, and about the negative impact that will have on individuals, the ripple effect on other innocent people from the loss of so much potential for effective ministry, and the fallout from the destroyed reputation of the church hampering evangelization efforts.
-
Doesn't a lot of this stem from how we define the word "Christian"? I think that this has become one of the most misused words in our language. First of all, it is a noun, not an adjective. Just this fact alone escapes most people, who use such phrases as "Christian principles", as if the word is ever used that way in scripture. There are Christ's principles, or biblical/scriptural principles. Christians don't determine the principles which we live by, Jesus does.
I raise this question of "What is a Christian?", because quite frankly I am frightened how loosely the word is used these days. For example:
1) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the divine inspiration of all scripture? I don't see how, but then again the reason I don't is because of what I read in those scriptures.
2) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Again, from the scriptures I don't see how.
3) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus is Divine and the Son of God our heavenly Father? Isn't this a requirement, according to the scriptures?
4) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe and practice the teachings of Jesus and His inspired apostles/writers? Not if the bible is true.
5) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the miraculous, such as heaven and hell, the resurrection of the dead, angels and demons, the devil, the Holy Spirit, and all the miracles in the bible? Again, if the bible has the answer, then it is "No."
Being a Christian, according to scripture, is MUCH more than saying that you like some of the things that this Jewish Rabbi in 30 AD had to say. It is a mental conviction that everything in the bible is true and inspired by the Holy Spirit, meaning that what it says about Jesus is true, meaning that I had better comply with Jesus' teachings if I hope to be saved.
So you can see why I may have concerns, out of love, for someone claiming allegiance to Christ but denying the inspiration of the scriptures and referring to an inspired apostle as a "theologian" writing solely to address problems of a congregation 2000 years ago, rather than for all Christians for all time.
Sorry to rant, but if we can't even agree on what a true Christian is, then we will never come to any agreement on the rest.
-
The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian" is because the label "christian" nowadays carries the connotation of a certain type of character, one which I am not eager to have everyone prejudge me to carry. It kind of goes back to the whole "self fulfilling prophesy" thing.
Non-Christian A agrees with you on point A and disagrees with you on point B. You unconsciously classify him positively because he agrees with you on point A and think something unconsciously like "he'd agree with me on point B if he became a Christian, but he's not so it makes sense."
Christian B agrees with you on point A and disagrees with you on point B. You classify him negatively because you're both Christians; he should agree with you on point B. You think something along the lines of "well, if he was a 'real' Christian, he'd be like me and agree with me on point B."
A label makes a universal between a vast amount of people. You, however, only have access to a minority of that so you compare that person to either yourself if you have that label or to others who share that label if you don't have that label or if you compare yourself to those people. By this, you judge character based on their ability to fulfill your prophesy.
The question of "what is a Christian" was addressed in the Apostle's creed.
1) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the divine inspiration of all scripture? I don't see how, but then again the reason I don't is because of what I read in those scriptures.
Well, there goes the early church, unless you mean ALL scriptures. Also I don't see how personal letters qualify as scriptures, especially when the author doesn't even claim to be speaking on behalf of God.
2) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Again, from the scriptures I don't see how.
This point fails because it is based on your earlier assumption, which is faulty. It is however, correct to say that it is necessary for a Christian to believe in the Christ as a messiah; we can see this in the church's history and creeds.
3) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus is Divine and the Son of God our heavenly Father? Isn't this a requirement, according to the scriptures?
In the 19th century, for a time perhaps. I think you should read James and 1-3 John, they seem to emphasise the opposite.
4) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe and practice the teachings of Jesus and His inspired apostles/writers? Not if the bible is true.
I'd say yes. Those writings were contingent: I don't see how they can be applied to the now.
5) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the miraculous, such as heaven and hell, the resurrection of the dead, angels and demons, the devil, the Holy Spirit, and all the miracles in the bible? Again, if the bible has the answer, then it is "No."
Ressurection of the dead would most likely be the only necessary belief of those.
St. Luke, for example, believed in universal salvation. Many Christians don't believe in miracles and trinitarian doctrine didn't exist during the time of the apostles.
-
Is it not incumbent upon you to take ownership of your faith, and shun people's prejudices rather than hide from them?
The OT sections of these boards, if anything, demonstrate a broad range of perspectives among brethren, but reasonable people aren't going to say that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in dunking versus sprinkling for baptism, for example. So either your concern among fellow believers is a largely-unfounded fear, or you are allowing the prejudices of unreasonable people to influence the way you present yourself, or you wish to shed tenets of the faith that are so basic to the church that they are universally agreed upon despite these wide differences. If the latter is true, then maybe criticism of those unorthodox ideas is not unwarranted.
-
Sorry, but you lost me after "The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian"...."
And if you do not believe that the apostles claimed to be speaking the words of God/Christ, you are sincerely mistaken. But you have obviously read the bible and it has not convinced you of this, so it is unlikely that I can.
-
Is it not incumbent upon you to take ownership of your faith, and shun people's prejudices rather than hide from them?
The OT sections of these boards, if anything, demonstrate a broad range of perspectives among brethren, but reasonable people aren't going to say that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in dunking versus sprinkling for baptism, for example. So either your concern among fellow believers is a largely-unfounded fear, or you are allowing the prejudices of unreasonable people to influence the way you present yourself, or you wish to shed tenets of the faith that are so basic to the church that they are universally agreed upon despite these wide differences. If the latter is true, then maybe criticism of those unorthodox ideas is not unwarranted.
I was speaking on terms of the subconscious psychological mechanisms of self-fulfilling prophesy.
Sorry, but you lost me after "The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian"...."
And if you do not believe that the apostles claimed to be speaking the words of God/Christ, you are sincerely mistaken. But you have obviously read the bible and it has not convinced you of this, so it is unlikely that I can.
No offense, but if you don't have a reason for believing that I'm sincernely mistaken, why do you believe so?
-
Well, there goes the early church, unless you mean ALL scriptures. Also I don't see how personal letters qualify as scriptures, especially when the author doesn't even claim to be speaking on behalf of God.
People in the early church revered the Scriptures available to them at the time, and those authors don't CLAIM to be the voice of God either, so this second requirement seems arbitrary.
This point fails because it is based on your earlier assumption, which is faulty. It is however, correct to say that it is necessary for a Christian to believe in the Christ as a messiah; we can see this in the church's history and creeds.
The Scriptures are part of the church history. To present these as contradictory makes no sense.
In the 19th century, for a time perhaps. I think you should read James and 1-3 John, they seem to emphasise the opposite.
This seems to be cherry-picking Scripture instead of regarding it as a cohesive whole.
I'd say yes. Those writings were contingent: I don't see how they can be applied to the now.
You honestly cannot see any modern application for the teachings of Jesus? At all?
St. Luke, for example, believed in universal salvation. Many Christians don't believe in miracles and trinitarian doctrine didn't exist during the time of the apostles.
He did not say anything about trinitarian doctrine, FWIW. But since all of those aspects are recorded in Scripture, and nearly all of them directly in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, I have a hard time imagining anyone believing in the saving power of Jesus while disbelieving in almost every significant detail of His life and ministry.
-
The Scriptures are part of the church history. To present these as contradictory makes no sense.
The scriptures are a record of church history, technically.
This seems to be cherry-picking Scripture instead of regarding it as a cohesive whole.
Since I don't view it as a cohesive whole, this would be an accurate assessment. John's works represent John's opinons, Paul's Paul's, etc.
You honestly cannot see any modern application for the teachings of Jesus? At all?
The coherent application can be induced from the historically contingent; that'd be the modern application.
He did not say anything about trinitarian doctrine, FWIW. But since all of those aspects are recorded in Scripture, and nearly all of them directly in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, I have a hard time imagining anyone believing in the saving power of Jesus while disbelieving in almost every significant detail of His life and ministry.
You're ignoring the hermeneutical process and assuming that everything is true or everything is false.
-
The scriptures are a record of church history, technically.
Well, since your acceptance of Scripture is selective and arbitrary, this undercuts your referral to church history as an indicator of accepting Christ as a requirement.
Since I don't view it as a cohesive whole, this would be an accurate assessment. John's works represent John's opinons, Paul's Paul's, etc.
And as such, do you then suppose I can say divinity is required based on my reading, and not required based on your reading? What then? They cannot both be correct. This is exactly the kind of theological fragmentation that results from selective reading.
The coherent application can be induced from the historically contingent; that'd be the modern application.
In other words, you DO see how the writings can be applied to the now, despite your previous statement to the contrary.
You're ignoring the hermeneutical process and assuming that everything is true or everything is false.
Apparently you didn't get the message that big words neither impress nor intimidate. For what reason do you come to the conclusion that - because I regard the Bible as complete and true - that I am ignoring the process? Is that how you treat everyone you debate, that if they don't come to your conclusions, they just walk through life blindly, and that you're the only one who uses his brain in the process? I would be very careful about leaving such implications in your tone.
On top of which, this blanket accusation is nothing more than a dismissal without addressing the point. All nine of the supernatural concepts steffer listed in his question appear in significant portions of the gospel stories. You dismissed all but one. I do not have to adopt an all-or-nothing stance to question whether you can dismiss all of these and still accept Him as the Messiah. I need only to ask what is left to believe in once so much of the story is carved out. Maybe you could spend a little more time considering the nature of the question I'm asking and a little less time working 50-dollar terms into your responses.
-
I think you're assuming that I'm giving my own views on right and wrong.
I'm simply outlining what beliefs are universal among Christians, and of those belief in a Messianic Jesus is the only constant.
-
By universal do you mean 100% or the bulk of Christianity over a statistically insignificant minority? So now I'm repeating for the third time how one accepts the story of Jesus while carving out nearly every significant event in His life, and the overwhelming majority of His teachings. I don't know how you define "many", but I can't say I've met any significant number of people who dismiss any number of those concepts to a degree worth discussing. If Heaven and Hell don't exist, then probably half of Jesus' teachings go out the window. If there are no miracles, then most of His recorded actions go. If there's no Holy Spirit, Jesus' words of sending a helper were a lie and the Pentecost was a sham. What is left to believe in once all the evidence of His ministry is stripped out?
-
I seem to have missed a lot of discussion in this thread, but here's a few of my thoughts.
I'm glad that you weren't talking about me Matt, because at first I thought that you were.
I appreciate your defense Jon, and you are totally correct about my motivations.
I do care a lot about Colin. I feel like we have gotten to know each other over the last couple years on this board, and I continue to believe that we would be good friends if we lived closer together. My responses to him are not based on him being different from me, but rather because I see a lot of myself (and some of my close friends) and him. I also have the benefit of being more than 10 years older than him. That allows me to see where the path that he is on leads (in my close friends life), and compare it to the path that I have chosen. Based on what I see in his future, yes I can definitely compare the two and say that one is better.
One might ask why I choose to respond to many of Colin's thoughts in the threads instead of just through PM. I sometimes do send Colin PM's, but I also am aware that Colin is looked up to a lot by some of our younger board members, and I want to try to help them also avoid the path that he is on.
-
Not to mention the Prof and I have fun with each other on occasion.
By universal do you mean 100% or the bulk of Christianity over a statistically insignificant minority? So now I'm repeating for the third time how one accepts the story of Jesus while carving out nearly every significant event in His life, and the overwhelming majority of His teachings. I don't know how you define "many", but I can't say I've met any significant number of people who dismiss any number of those concepts to a degree worth discussing. If Heaven and Hell don't exist, then probably half of Jesus' teachings go out the window. If there are no miracles, then most of His recorded actions go. If there's no Holy Spirit, Jesus' words of sending a helper were a lie and the Pentecost was a sham. What is left to believe in once all the evidence of His ministry is stripped out?
You've never met a Christian who doesn't believe in miracles?
You've never met a Christian who believes in universal salvation? (Ahem... St. Luke?)
As for the Holy Spirit, I personally believe the trinity to be a human construct to describe a phenomenon.
Actually, you could say that I believe everything to be a human paradigm to describe a phenomenon.
-
Cutthroat Caverns. I think I've said it all.
-
Cutthroat Caverns. I think I've said it all.
Except I have never played the game, so I missed all that you've had to say then. ;)
In all seriousness, to answer Colin's questions.
1. No, I've not met someone who is committed to Christ and following Him (aka Christian) not believe in miracles. Jesus miracles was another step confirming his deity, and I believe it confirmed a few prophecies from the OT too.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by the term "universal salvation." Do you mean that Christ died for everyone? Then I agree. Do you mean that everyone is saved and there is no Hell (because of lack of need because everyone is saved)? Then I disagree and I don't think the book of Luke backs that.
Finally, we've had this discussion before on the validity of Scripture (regarding the NT) and I gave verses from Peter who confirmed Paul's writing being from God. Paul even encourages that we must speak as if speaking from God because we are Ambassadors.
-
Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
John chapter something verse something
-
Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
John chapter something verse something
I'm not saying that I reject the validity of that, I'm just saying there are many Christians who do and they are still "Christians", whether you agree with their interpretation or not.
-
I'm not saying that I reject the validity of that, I'm just saying there are many Christians who do and they are still "Christians", whether you agree with their interpretation or not.
Again, I don't know who is this "many" of whom you speak. Most of the people I know are way more conservative than I am when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and I haven't even been down south where the hardcore Baptists are.
-
...and I haven't even been down south where the hardcore Baptists are.
That's meeeee! ;D
-
YMT, I think you'll appreciate this. I grew up in a church of Free Will Baptists, and knew several others in southern Ohio, real down-home folk, real conservative. My childhood pastor once told an anecdote about how someone told him, "You're so narrow-minded, you probably think only Free Will Baptists are going to Heaven." "I'm even more narrow-minded than that," he quipped, "I don't even think a lot of Free Will Baptists are going to Heaven!"
-
YMT, I think you'll appreciate this. I grew up in a church of Free Will Baptists, and knew several others in southern Ohio, real down-home folk, real conservative. My childhood pastor once told an anecdote about how someone told him, "You're so narrow-minded, you probably think only Free Will Baptists are going to Heaven." "I'm even more narrow-minded than that," he quipped, "I don't even think a lot of Free Will Baptists are going to Heaven!"
LOL. Indeed.
There certainly can't be more than 144,000 sincere Baptists anyway. ;D
-
I'm not saying that I reject the validity of that, I'm just saying there are many Christians who do and they are still "Christians", whether you agree with their interpretation or not.
Again, I don't know who is this "many" of whom you speak. Most of the people I know are way more conservative than I am when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and I haven't even been down south where the hardcore Baptists are.
It's a regional/community based thing.
-
It's a regional/community based thing.
I was just as narrow-minded in New England as I am here in Florida.
-
It's a regional/community based thing.
If anything, a "regional thing" doesn't sound like it has any business speaking for the 2 billion plus that hold the faith.
-
and about Job, well, i do not believe in a litteral job so im on your side there
"Ezekiel 12The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
13Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:
14Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
15If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:
16Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.
20Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness." I have to side with the bible and say Job existed, and i have to agree with The Schaef that a regional thing doesn't really sound like it can account for the majority of christians.
-
Doesn't it make sense that Ezekiel would cross-reference his work with commonly known figures?
I personally don't care whether or not Job is metaphorical. It probably is, but it doesn't really effect the message either way.