What is Christianity?
- Thread starter Barnabas
- Start date
That's what the bible says. "Perfect love drives out fear."
Meh. Not buying it in this context, especially when God creates something for you to fear and then demands your love to free you from it.
I'm not here to debate you. I stated my opinion as was asked. I've already been there done that whole Born Again thing.
I'm just going to say:
If God is truly Omnipotent as the bible states, if He's all knowing and all powerful...
Then how can you even have a choice in following Him?
Meh. Not buying it in this context, especially when God creates something for you to fear and then demands your love to free you from it.
I'm not here to debate you. I stated my opinion as was asked. I've already been there done that whole Born Again thing.
I'm just going to say:
If God is truly Omnipotent as the bible states, if He's all knowing and all powerful...
Then how can you even have a choice in following Him?
Last edited:
Hell is not a place of tocture and only those with weak faiths should fear hell. Besides, God doesn't demand your love, God gives his love freely to all those willing to accept it.
I'm guessing former baptist that attended a church with a strong Calvinist stance? That would be my first impression, that is...
How does being all knowing lead to you not having a choice? It is possible to know something and not force somebody to do something? Suppose you went back to the early 1930's and knew that Hitler was going to rise to power and cause a world war. Do you have to act upon this knowledge or can you sit by and let it happen? Now I'm sure that your next argument is that God could have stepped in and stopped it, but would God be giving us free will and letting us freely choose him or would he be forcing us to follow him? I don't think so besides, making your own mistakes is how you grow and become better people.
Last edited:
No I was actually a pretty liberal Christian and never settled on a denomination.. though I searched for a few years different denominational churches and biblestudies...Certainly not a Calvinist Baptist. But you know what I love? How you would assert that, just automatically. Just goes to show you can believe in something all you want without knowing a damn thing about it.
Calvinism made more sense to me, yet I found God smarmy and more brutal under it.
Armenism appealed to me in a way, but made little sense when I thought about it philosophically.
I'm also not a Christian because:
I don't know what's worse, that men created the religion in part to subdue women.. or that God really exists and that's the way He regards women.
Calvinism made more sense to me, yet I found God smarmy and more brutal under it.
Armenism appealed to me in a way, but made little sense when I thought about it philosophically.
I'm also not a Christian because:
I don't know what's worse, that men created the religion in part to subdue women.. or that God really exists and that's the way He regards women.
Last edited:
I guess you didn't read the "I'm guessing...." part of my post and I based that off from the fact that I've tend to find that a number of the former Calvinist Baptist seem to believe that Christians should somehow fear hell (even when it's clear we shouldn't). You know what I find amusing? That you didn't actually deal with my argument and instead decided to instead use a red herring and ad hominem. That's quite telling, if you ask me.
I see you added more, so let me continue
I don't really see how since just because God knows what is going to happen, it doesn't follow that he has to act upon it.
I've actually wrote a lot of on this topic and I know it's downright wrong. Care to try?
Last edited:
You can't even understand how I would find it offensive that you would so arrogantly and so incorrectly begin to assume what my theological stance was from that post?
Couple the "only those with weak faith should fear hell" statement with this:
And that's why I can't believe. It doesn't make sense. So there's a pressure to believe though you're being told that it's your fault for not accepting the love God offers because you don't have enough faith. Seems like a dysfunctional cycle.
Weak faith, fear hell, read more bible, pray more, increase faith. wash rinse repeat.
Couple the "only those with weak faith should fear hell" statement with this:
And... "Perfect love drives out fear.."
And that's why I can't believe. It doesn't make sense. So there's a pressure to believe though you're being told that it's your fault for not accepting the love God offers because you don't have enough faith. Seems like a dysfunctional cycle.
Either way, I'm not content with that God.
Last edited:
To me, Christianity or more precisely the Orthodox brand (Russian, Greek, American, etc) is a life style where you worship the Holy Trinity and try not to be an asshole to people. In fact you must do more than not be an asshole, you must respect people and treat them lovingly. I think those are the simplest terms.
Romans 2:11 states "There is no respect of persons with God." When studying that, we find there is no partiality with God. Felt the need to clear that up should there be any KJV folk out there.
I understand the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" theme.
There are events in my past that required quite some time to forgive. I found myself recently in a situation I could have had great difficulties with, had I not forgiven a specific person. I forgave them but still do not appreciate what was done and what was said. I do understand I am supposed to love my neighbor as myself. Some people do not act like a neighbor but rather selfish and unreasonable. I may have to stand up against something that may affect me or my family, but that does not mean I am standing up against that person. They may see it differently.
I feel I know mostly what is right and what is wrong, and state I am still a work in the making. When I feel someone is stepping on my rights, I question if they are truly a neighbor or just someone that could care less about my feelings and my rights. I will stand up for what I believe is right, and that may sometimes have others look at me wrongly. I have most likely been called a butt at some point in my life, and I may readily forgive them for so doing. That does not mean I have to accept what their actions are, and I am certain I have not always been forgiven by some folk that think I am against them. It may be difficult distinguishing between the two. It does get easier with experience and thus, age.
I understand the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" theme.
There are events in my past that required quite some time to forgive. I found myself recently in a situation I could have had great difficulties with, had I not forgiven a specific person. I forgave them but still do not appreciate what was done and what was said. I do understand I am supposed to love my neighbor as myself. Some people do not act like a neighbor but rather selfish and unreasonable. I may have to stand up against something that may affect me or my family, but that does not mean I am standing up against that person. They may see it differently.
I feel I know mostly what is right and what is wrong, and state I am still a work in the making. When I feel someone is stepping on my rights, I question if they are truly a neighbor or just someone that could care less about my feelings and my rights. I will stand up for what I believe is right, and that may sometimes have others look at me wrongly. I have most likely been called a butt at some point in my life, and I may readily forgive them for so doing. That does not mean I have to accept what their actions are, and I am certain I have not always been forgiven by some folk that think I am against them. It may be difficult distinguishing between the two. It does get easier with experience and thus, age.
After having thought a lot about "Jesus' standing up against the religious nuts" statement, I felt a disclaimer of sorts was in line.
Mention should be made about how he stood for truth. The religious leaders did not see Jesus as the Messiah the prophets had written about. Their eyes could not see it, for there were other reasons for His life. He was to go to the Gentiles, but had to be rejected first. The scribes and Pharisees...the hypocrites... all were trying everything they could think of to snare Jesus in their own spider webs. They did what they could to trick Him and to condemn Him.
I think when He cast out the moneychangers from His Father's House may have been the only time He acted with authority before His death. The rest of His being quiet and calm was to fulfil the prophets. He acted with a kind heart in meekness, yet treated the diseases and the blindness with authority. I, too, like the way He stood up to the leaders of the times.
Mention should be made about how he stood for truth. The religious leaders did not see Jesus as the Messiah the prophets had written about. Their eyes could not see it, for there were other reasons for His life. He was to go to the Gentiles, but had to be rejected first. The scribes and Pharisees...the hypocrites... all were trying everything they could think of to snare Jesus in their own spider webs. They did what they could to trick Him and to condemn Him.
I think when He cast out the moneychangers from His Father's House may have been the only time He acted with authority before His death. The rest of His being quiet and calm was to fulfil the prophets. He acted with a kind heart in meekness, yet treated the diseases and the blindness with authority. I, too, like the way He stood up to the leaders of the times.
(Why did my computer have to restart while I was getting close to finishing a post here, making me loose it all?)
On another forum's "Ask a Theologian" thread I learned of a traditional divide between the concept of "The Philosopher's God" and "The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob." The Philosopher's God is the theoretical being defined by Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omnibenevolence, which had been proposed by Greek philosophers and largely refuted before the time of Christ. The bible instead presents the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, which is defined not by his immense power but by his Loyalty, or more accurately, Chesed. Chesed is a complex term that can be difficult to define, but may be rendered, loyalty, love, steadfast love, covenantal love, or loving-kindness. I like to explain it as the act of the will reorienting itself so that the good of another is held to be more important that the good of the self. It is viewed as the defining quality of an ideal marriage, as well in an ideal relationship between Man and God. It is this which God claims he wants from us rather than sacrifices.
Does the bible claim God to be omnipotent? In some translations, yes. In the original languages? Not exactly. It is clear that there is nothing more powerful than God, but that does not necessarily make God omnipotent as the term is generally conceived. Furthermore, the common conception of omnipotence as the ability to do anything whatsoever has never been very popular. A few individuals, such as Rene Descartes, have over the course of history argued that God can do absolutely anything, but the classical conception of omnipotence is clear to limit his power to doing only that which is logically possible. Few have even entertained the notion that God could make a square circle or could make 2+2=5. In general, it has also been considered logically impossible for God to change his own defining qualities, such as existence, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. The bible itself is clear that God cannot lie, or sin in general.
If I recall there are several places where the bible claims god is most powerful, but only one which commonly says omnipotent. Omnipotens was the Latin term used to translate the term which the Septuagint had used to translate the name of El Shaddai. The translators of the septuagint assumed that Shaddai was derived from Shadad, meaning "to smite," and meant all powerful. (Actually the more common name for God as Elohim probably ought to be translated The Almighty, as El really means Mighty One rather than God and its grammatically plural/dual nature combined with singular adjectives is one way of conveying a superlative.) That is generally rejected these days. One apparently more accurate etymology is for it to some from Shad + ai, meaning "my own teat." Thus when God introduced himself as El Shaddai he is saying "I am the Mighty One, My Own Teat," meaning that he is nourishing and self sufficient. Rabbinical tradition includes an alternate meaning. IIrc the Talmud argues that El Shaddai is a contraction of a longer phrase meaning "God who said 'Enough'" (Dai also means enough). This is said to be a reference to his creation of Earth, which they argue he purposefully left unfinished so that Mankind could have the task of perfecting creation through the practice of Chesed love.
There have been some throughout the ages who argued against God's omnipotence. if I recall Origin was the most famous of the church fathers to do so explicitly, although one or two others hinted at their agreement. Origin was posthumously declared a heretic, but not for that view. In fact, his heresy is closer to what is demanded by a Calvinistic conception of omnipotence. His heresy was claiming that every shall be saved eventually, including Satan himself, no matter what. Technically they did not denounce the idea that those in hell could still be saved eventually, or even that the devil could be saved, but rather rejected the notion that God would ever force salvation upon anyone. His heresy was denying that God respects free will, which true love requires.
The early church did not really have the same concept of hell as we do today. Actually many of their writings are not very clear on what they believed was the fate on non-Christians. It seems that Universalism was popular, as was Conditional immortality. The doctrine of Eternal Damnation quickly became dogma in the Carthaginian school (which dominated the West, including Rome, and though the massive influence of Augustine became the only one most know of today), but not elsewhere. The Church at Ephesus long maintained Conditional immortality, while the other 4 branches of the church were open to all 3 doctrines, with even close friends and brothers often prefering different ones.
I have in the past few years come to lean towards Conditional Immortality. (I had begun to lean towards the position based purely on a plain reading of the text, before having the theologian from the ask a theologian thread explain why he thinks it is a more biblical position and the traditional view of heaven and hell derived more from Greek philosophy.) This view denies the natural immortality of the soul, given that the bible explicitly states that only God is immortal. Immortality is a gift freely given to those who accept Christ. Those who reject Christ will simply cease to exist. Although it technically could be seperate, it generally goes together with soul sleep. The soul does not survive physical death, but is recreated in a new body in the resurrection in the last days. Everyone will be resurrected and judged, but the new bodies of Christians will be incorruptible and immortal while the others will be mortal and will die again. We will all have to endure punishment proportional to our sins and to how much we knew better tan to commit them, possibly with hardships in life counting towards part of the punishment. There will however be no eternal torment for anyone. The saints will emerge stronger from their hardships while the rest will be put out of their misery. Hypocrites claiming to be Christians will have a much harder time than righteous pagans.
God is classically conceived as being outside of time, but not all believe that way. In Open Theism omniscience is defined much as omnipotence has classically been. It means knowing all things that are knowable, but the future is thought to not yet exist and thus not be knowable, even for God. He would have perfect knowledge of all possible futures, know the likelihood of each, and would have made/be able to intervene in the world in such a way as to make the worst outcomes impossible, but humans would still have free agency enough to direct our own future within these bounds. I'm not whether to believe this or not, but it certainly seems more reasonable than Calvin's view.
On another forum's "Ask a Theologian" thread I learned of a traditional divide between the concept of "The Philosopher's God" and "The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob." The Philosopher's God is the theoretical being defined by Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omnibenevolence, which had been proposed by Greek philosophers and largely refuted before the time of Christ. The bible instead presents the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, which is defined not by his immense power but by his Loyalty, or more accurately, Chesed. Chesed is a complex term that can be difficult to define, but may be rendered, loyalty, love, steadfast love, covenantal love, or loving-kindness. I like to explain it as the act of the will reorienting itself so that the good of another is held to be more important that the good of the self. It is viewed as the defining quality of an ideal marriage, as well in an ideal relationship between Man and God. It is this which God claims he wants from us rather than sacrifices.
Does the bible claim God to be omnipotent? In some translations, yes. In the original languages? Not exactly. It is clear that there is nothing more powerful than God, but that does not necessarily make God omnipotent as the term is generally conceived. Furthermore, the common conception of omnipotence as the ability to do anything whatsoever has never been very popular. A few individuals, such as Rene Descartes, have over the course of history argued that God can do absolutely anything, but the classical conception of omnipotence is clear to limit his power to doing only that which is logically possible. Few have even entertained the notion that God could make a square circle or could make 2+2=5. In general, it has also been considered logically impossible for God to change his own defining qualities, such as existence, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. The bible itself is clear that God cannot lie, or sin in general.
If I recall there are several places where the bible claims god is most powerful, but only one which commonly says omnipotent. Omnipotens was the Latin term used to translate the term which the Septuagint had used to translate the name of El Shaddai. The translators of the septuagint assumed that Shaddai was derived from Shadad, meaning "to smite," and meant all powerful. (Actually the more common name for God as Elohim probably ought to be translated The Almighty, as El really means Mighty One rather than God and its grammatically plural/dual nature combined with singular adjectives is one way of conveying a superlative.) That is generally rejected these days. One apparently more accurate etymology is for it to some from Shad + ai, meaning "my own teat." Thus when God introduced himself as El Shaddai he is saying "I am the Mighty One, My Own Teat," meaning that he is nourishing and self sufficient. Rabbinical tradition includes an alternate meaning. IIrc the Talmud argues that El Shaddai is a contraction of a longer phrase meaning "God who said 'Enough'" (Dai also means enough). This is said to be a reference to his creation of Earth, which they argue he purposefully left unfinished so that Mankind could have the task of perfecting creation through the practice of Chesed love.
There have been some throughout the ages who argued against God's omnipotence. if I recall Origin was the most famous of the church fathers to do so explicitly, although one or two others hinted at their agreement. Origin was posthumously declared a heretic, but not for that view. In fact, his heresy is closer to what is demanded by a Calvinistic conception of omnipotence. His heresy was claiming that every shall be saved eventually, including Satan himself, no matter what. Technically they did not denounce the idea that those in hell could still be saved eventually, or even that the devil could be saved, but rather rejected the notion that God would ever force salvation upon anyone. His heresy was denying that God respects free will, which true love requires.
The early church did not really have the same concept of hell as we do today. Actually many of their writings are not very clear on what they believed was the fate on non-Christians. It seems that Universalism was popular, as was Conditional immortality. The doctrine of Eternal Damnation quickly became dogma in the Carthaginian school (which dominated the West, including Rome, and though the massive influence of Augustine became the only one most know of today), but not elsewhere. The Church at Ephesus long maintained Conditional immortality, while the other 4 branches of the church were open to all 3 doctrines, with even close friends and brothers often prefering different ones.
I have in the past few years come to lean towards Conditional Immortality. (I had begun to lean towards the position based purely on a plain reading of the text, before having the theologian from the ask a theologian thread explain why he thinks it is a more biblical position and the traditional view of heaven and hell derived more from Greek philosophy.) This view denies the natural immortality of the soul, given that the bible explicitly states that only God is immortal. Immortality is a gift freely given to those who accept Christ. Those who reject Christ will simply cease to exist. Although it technically could be seperate, it generally goes together with soul sleep. The soul does not survive physical death, but is recreated in a new body in the resurrection in the last days. Everyone will be resurrected and judged, but the new bodies of Christians will be incorruptible and immortal while the others will be mortal and will die again. We will all have to endure punishment proportional to our sins and to how much we knew better tan to commit them, possibly with hardships in life counting towards part of the punishment. There will however be no eternal torment for anyone. The saints will emerge stronger from their hardships while the rest will be put out of their misery. Hypocrites claiming to be Christians will have a much harder time than righteous pagans.
God is classically conceived as being outside of time, but not all believe that way. In Open Theism omniscience is defined much as omnipotence has classically been. It means knowing all things that are knowable, but the future is thought to not yet exist and thus not be knowable, even for God. He would have perfect knowledge of all possible futures, know the likelihood of each, and would have made/be able to intervene in the world in such a way as to make the worst outcomes impossible, but humans would still have free agency enough to direct our own future within these bounds. I'm not whether to believe this or not, but it certainly seems more reasonable than Calvin's view.
