Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Defining a True One


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:33 AM

This topic may be an interesting one determined by how it goes.  It's another religious topic by the way, about Christianity.  However this is going to be one where mostly everyone should be able to passionately contribute to whether you are a christian or not.  I say mostly everyone, because chances are even if you are not a christian, you were raised to believe in it if you were born in western civilization.  Also if you are a christian, as you know there are many denominations out there and ways of thinking.  Now there is nothing wrong with there being different christian traditions, because we come from different cultural backgrounds.  Yet as far as main doctrine, there should be no difference at all.  What I want to do with this topic is to bring out the universal doctrine of Christianity, and seperate traditions that are man made and aren't christian at all.  I want to dig deep here into the greek of Scripture, and break down things Jesus said and the intended purposes for what was said.  For the non christian, I want to challenge your understanding of Christianity. 

 

 

So everyone, let's be respectful.  I'm probably going to step on people's toes here, but yall should know by now that I'm respectful all the time.  I never called anyone names nor questioned their intelligence, not even with sarcasm. (The only time I've been sarcastic, is when I'm talking football.  That's probably the one thing I don't like about sports, my dark side tends to have a field day with it if I let it. :cigar:   Yet even then I don't personally attack others on here)   For the sake of keeping this topic interesting, I hope everyone does the same.  Now for those who don't believe a god exists, don't let the religious guy show you up on manners.  For those who have a faith, you be courteous as well.  With all that said, let's get it started. (By the way, concerning the title for this topic for those interested, I was originally going to put "What Does it Mean to be a True Christian".  Yet I knew people would read that, and post without reading my OP, mostly post sarcasm.  Yet with the current title, I believe more people will read the OP to see what the world I'm talking about.)

 

 

 

 

Here's my main points of belief that I will be arguing....

 

 

 

Purpose of a Christian: To share God's love on as many people as possible.  This love being something that's real, and not abstract.  Something that can be seen, and is inherently different from anything else on earth. (For example, it has the power to change some of the most hated people on earth.  That's a basic example, but basically with God's love, you are able to do things that people wouldn't even attempt nor think about doing.)

 

 

 

Foundation of a Christian:  Everything emanates from Jesus' nature.  When a person is "born again", we are born with Jesus' new nature and now have a spirit that is like His.  Now the body is still of the old nature and is yet to be changed, however if a christian lives from his new spirit, everything he/she does comes from Jesus' nature.  To be able to do the purpose of a christian, it must be done from the foundation of a christian.

 

 

 

 

Main doctrinal points:

 

- No one earns their salvation through working for it, not even in part.  It's all given by God.

 

 

- Genesis must be literal in order for Christianity to make sense. (I know I'm stepping on toes here.  If and/or when someone argues against this point, let's be respectful and reasonable.)

 

 

- Some of the things Jesus said, He said to people who were under the law (Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws Moses gave)  So not everything Jesus said, He said for christians to apply in their lives.  Example:  Jesus said if you call someone a fool, you are in danger of the judgement.  So christians, don't go around condemning yourself if you accidentally called someone a fool, Jesus said this to those who were trying to keep the commandment not to murder. (Which Jesus says if you hate your brother, you are a murderer at heart)  Just grow up, and apologize to that person if you have the chance.  Of course there are folk who act foolishly and perhaps deserve to be called so, but we aren't in that kind of business.  Jesus came into the world to save it, not to condemn it. (some food for thought I suppose)  I expect some arguments from former christians on this point, because it can seem like I could use it to get out of things Jesus said for us to do.  You have to read the context in order to know what Jesus is saying and who He's saying it to.

 

 

- Everyone after Adam, except for Jesus, is born with a corrupt nature.  Why wasn't Jesus born with a corrupt nature?  Jesus didn't have a human father.  So I suppose the trait for corruption is passed down from the father.

 

 

 

So I'll leave it there for now.  Feel free to challenge my doctrinal points.  My goal with this thread is to provide a clear picture of what a christian is and what it means to be one.  It's a daring attempt I know.



#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,135 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:58 AM

How many people not honoring their mother and father have you put to death?



#3 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:12 AM

How many people not honoring their mother and father have you put to death?

 

You're referring to the commandments.  With the Ten Commandments, it was about earning God's blessings.  If you failed to keep them, you earned death ultimately. 



#4 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,501 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:27 AM

So basically the Bible should be taken literally except when it shouldn't.



#5 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:36 AM

So basically the Bible should be taken literally except when it shouldn't.

 

Depends on context. 



#6 PhillyB

PhillyB

    that jungle football

  • ALL-PRO
  • 20,066 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:46 AM

OP have you heard of the no true scotsman fallacy?

 

your methodology is flawed because everything you're doing is based upon the premise of a foundation of universal doctrine. this is great if you're trying to integrate denominations in the sense of helping them get along better, but useless if you're trying to establish any sort of concrete theological tenets that everyone should agree on. other theologians will disagree with plenty of the things you're bringing up here; there is nothing universal about a literal genesis (unless your universe is fundamentalist evangelical churches.)

 

anyway i'd be wasting my time if i addressed this all point-by-point, and even considering it is exhausting, and it's fairly clear from your posts on here that you're mired in the analytical flaw of arguing from predetermined conclusion, which means you'll accept or reject evidence/data/arguments based on whether or not they fit what you've already determined is true, so highlighting those flaws is an exercise in futility.

 

i'll leave you food for thought:

 

 

 

So basically the Bible should be taken literally except when it shouldn't.

 

 

Depends on context. 

 

 

this debate is central to everything being discussed here. the fact is, no person who hadn't been socialized and indoctrinated to believe that the bible should be taken literally would ever come to that conclusion on their own. and unless you can point to some authority that dictates what is and isn't literal truth in the bible (please don't say god lol) then it all comes down to interpretation, which means literally everything god says is filtered through man, which means we have to considering framing biases, contemporary cosmogonies, and other social/cultural/historical factors that dictate why someone would say/write/believe something in the context of their time.



#7 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,135 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:19 PM

The context is that you are using made up bullshit and trying to sell it as a starting point for discussion. I understand you feel you have a mission to educate the unwashed masses, but since you are attempting to use logic in doing so, you doom it before it begins.



#8 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:27 PM

OP have you heard of the no true scotsman fallacy?

 

your methodology is flawed because everything you're doing is based upon the premise of a foundation of universal doctrine. this is great if you're trying to integrate denominations in the sense of helping them get along better, but useless if you're trying to establish any sort of concrete theological tenets that everyone should agree on. other theologians will disagree with plenty of the things you're bringing up here; there is nothing universal about a literal genesis (unless your universe is fundamentalist evangelical churches.)

 

anyway i'd be wasting my time if i addressed this all point-by-point, and even considering it is exhausting, and it's fairly clear from your posts on here that you're mired in the analytical flaw of arguing from predetermined conclusion, which means you'll accept or reject evidence/data/arguments based on whether or not they fit what you've already determined is true, so highlighting those flaws is an exercise in futility.

 

i'll leave you food for thought:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this debate is central to everything being discussed here. the fact is, no person who hadn't been socialized and indoctrinated to believe that the bible should be taken literally would ever come to that conclusion on their own. and unless you can point to some authority that dictates what is and isn't literal truth in the bible (please don't say god lol) then it all comes down to interpretation, which means literally everything god says is filtered through man, which means we have to considering framing biases, contemporary cosmogonies, and other social/cultural/historical factors that dictate why someone would say/write/believe something in the context of their time.

 

 

Don't be so quick to write off the topic.  Of course I stated there are differences between christians and we have different traditions because of culture.  Surely we aren't living like christians back in the day were living for example.  Well, there's different cultures in this day and age.  Yet there are foundational stuff that christians should all agree on.  For instance, Jesus dying for our sins.  There shouldn't be disagreement on that, because if Jesus didn't die for our sins, that officially eliminates what Christianity is.

 

 

I listed some stuff down, and I will further clarify and give evidence for those things within the Bible for why they should be so as the posts go along.  Some might say this discussion been done many times.  Well, let's have it one more time.  Might be surprised by some of the answers.



#9 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,512 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:29 PM

either the Bible should be interpreted literally or it's just a set of lessons that we may or may not want to accept depending on societal and cultural constructs surrounding those lessons both in the time they were written and today.  You may think some of those lessons are more worthy than others (imo this is fine so long as you accept the worthiness is your personal/religion's opinion and not divinely ordained) but you lose the whole "Word of God" argument when you toss out half of that word because it's inconvenient today.



#10 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:31 PM

The context is that you are using made up bullshit and trying to sell it as a starting point for discussion. I understand you feel you have a mission to educate the unwashed masses, but since you are attempting to use logic in doing so, you doom it before it begins.

 

 

I'm making nothing up.  In fact, unlike most christians, I reason from the more original languages of the text. (Both Hebrew and Greek)  I guess I can't tell you that, but more have to show you through my posts.  Yet in any case, I want to discuss these things to see other people's thoughts.  Those things I listed are my arguing points.  I want to see others and theirs.



#11 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:35 PM

either the Bible should be interpreted literally or it's just a set of lessons that we may or may not want to accept depending on societal and cultural constructs surrounding those lessons both in the time they were written and today.  You may think some of those lessons are more worthy than others (imo this is fine so long as you accept the worthiness is your personal/religion's opinion and not divinely ordained) but you lose the whole "Word of God" argument when you toss out half of that word because it's inconvenient today.

 

This reasoning makes it seem like I'm throwing teaching out because I personally don't like it.  I'm not throwing anything out based on how I feel about it.  I don't want to use the words "throwing out" necessarily, but you have to look at the context of what is true for a Christian compared to what was done under the commandments and things like that.  Ask me some questions, and I can better show you what I'm talking about.



#12 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:36 PM

Why must Genesis be literal for the teachings of Jesus to be sensical?



#13 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,834 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:37 PM

What's a corrupt nature?  How can you know that one's being is corrupt versus uncorrupt?  Who is this Jesus fellow you say wasn't in possession of a corrupt nature?  Is there anything outside of your one text corroborating any of this?



#14 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:38 PM

Why must Genesis be literal for the teachings of Jesus to be sensical?

 

What teachings specifically.



#15 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 12:39 PM

What teachings specifically.

 

Pick any.  Perhaps the parable of the good samaritan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com