| Subject: Generally general |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/28/04 11:26am
In reply to:
Biff
's message, "I wanna be cremated" on 10/27/04 9:42pm
>
>I disagree, with one exception. The Bible records that
>God walked and talked with Adam and Eve, seemingly in
>a physical sense, in the Garden of Eden. Aside from
>that, I don't see any significant differences in the
>ways God communicated with people in ancient times and
>the ways he does so today. Just because these modern
>instances have not been compiled into one text and
>circulated around the world doesn't mean they don't
>happen.
So in the Old Testament, you don't think he happened to talk in much the way we do to large groups of people? You think he did the same "vague feely thing" then that he does now?
>
>So then it seems we agree on something. And thus, even
>if it is argued that God is bound by logic, it does
>not mean that he is bound by nature.
If God cannot violate laws of logic or nature, then he is.
>
>I don't assume, this is what the Christian generally
>believes about God.
Beliefs rest on assumptions. This one happens to rest on the assumption that God is indepedent from nature. I'm not really sure what reason there is to believe that over any other interpretation.
>Ah, so then He is different from the pagan gods.
Not really. The old pagan Gods were constructed to explain various aspects of nature. Some of them incorporated many aspects of nature into one monotheistic system.
It's just the same old pagan God, but with a different feeling since others came along.
>
>This is what I mean. That belief is not central to the
>Christian faith, and never has been. If, during the
>Victorian age, someone argued against that belief (and
>I'm sure some did), no educated theologian would have
>rationally labelled that person a non-Christian based
>on his argument.
I'm not so sure about all of that. People are labeled non-christians today for infractions that are even more minor, like having music in church.
>
>Again, free will is not central to the Christian
>faith. Many agree with the concept, many disagree.
>This one is not the line that separates Christian from
>non-Christian.
So if I believe in God and Jesus, that's good enough for Biff? If I go out of my way to sin all the time, is that also still good enough for Biff to call me a Christian? Where exactly IS the line drawn in your opinion?
>
>Christians have always believed that Jesus was the Son
>of God. Christians have always believed that he was
>crucified and resurrected.
Are Jews not Christians?
Christians have always
>believed He ascended to heaven.
Umm...not really. Gnostic people believe God is actually the devil, not to mention some other differing beliefs about Jesus once he was resurrected. Maybe you don't count gnostic folks as Christians, but since they hold the same basic beliefs, I'm lead to believe you think they are in fact Christians.
These and several
>other statements have always been at the core of
>Christianity and have not changed.
So again, I assume you hold gnostic folks as Christians, despite the fact that their beliefs are quite a bit different than what the Bible would let on.
>
>To a degree, yes. I also said "thrived" not simply
>appeared or survived.
I'm pretty sure Islam is safely characterized as thriving. At the very least, Christianity is in the same boat whether they both be thought of as "thriving" or "surviving".
This is where
>Christianity has evolved, and this is why you say that
>it is so different from what it once was. But a close
>examination of the core beliefs reveals that the world
>view is the same as it has always been.
If by the same you mean "involving God and Jesus" then I suppose you are right. Of course, that also means you have to be willing to admit gnostic Christians as Christians, despite the fact that their beliefs are a radical departure from what the Bible seems to indicate.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 