Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Seychelle Pennyfeather]

I have a crisis of faith on two topics right now. The first is that not everyone in the world has had the oppurunity to hear the gospel and the story of jesus. Would it be fair to condemn someone who was never even given a chance to learn about god. My second is about hell, I do believe that people should be punished for their sins but someone being burned for all of eternity is too much. Humans commit a finite amount of sin and I dont think its fair for someone to suffer forever.

Well, let's say an atheist commits murder. Under the atheist's worldview, there is no afterlife. This means that if an atheist kills someone, he is doing so under the assumption that the consequence to this person (death) will last fovever.

In other words, if a human being takes sinful actions under the assumption that this is our only life and therefore the end of this life is eternally the end of somebody's existence, then that person has already accepted the concept of eternal consequences. We're talking about somebody with no belief in Jesus Christ who enacts his unbelief by murdering another person. So under the murderous atheist's own worldview, if it were true that this is the only life, then that atheist has just killed someone and stamped out that person's life forever.

Why wouldn't eternal punishment be warranted for somebody who committed those actions within that frame of mind? It's simply giving the sinner a taste of his own medicine.

 

[MajinGoku]

Well, let's say an atheist commits murder. Under the atheist's worldview, there is no afterlife. This means that if an atheist kills someone, he is doing so under the assumption that the consequence to this person (death) will last fovever.

In other words, if a human being takes sinful actions under the assumption that this is our only life and therefore the end of this life is eternally the end of somebody's existence, then that person has already accepted the concept of eternal consequences. We're talking about somebody with no belief in Jesus Christ who enacts his unbelief by murdering another person. So under the murderous atheist's own worldview, if it were true that this is the only life, then that atheist has just killed someone and stamped out that person's life forever.

Why wouldn't eternal punishment be warranted for somebody who committed those actions within that frame of mind? It's simply giving the sinner a taste of his own medicine.

The atheist believes that someone would stop suffering immediatly after death. So by their own logic the suffering is limited. Also that argument only covers a tiny percentage of the population as the vast majority of the world arent killers. What about a Buddhist who has sex outside of marriage with a woman who is not married. The action of fornication is finite as the sex would stop eventually. It doesn't make sense for him to face burning in fire FOREVER for doing that.

 

[Seychelle Pennyfeather]

The atheist believes that someone would stop suffering immediatly after death. So by their own logic the suffering is limited. Also that argument only covers a tiny percentage of the population as the vast majority of the world arent killers. What about a Buddhist who has sex outside of marriage with a woman who is not married. The action of fornication is finite as the sex would stop eventually. It doesn't make sense for him to face burning in fire FOREVER for doing that.

By their own logic, the suffering is limited, but the consequence is forever. If there is no afterlife, then the consequence of committing murder is that the murderer has forever snuffed out another person's life. The murderer operates under the assumption that once the person is dead, that is it; there is no further consciousness, no further experience, no further anything for that person. I don't know why you're pivoting to "suffering." I didn't use the term "suffering" once. I have consistently used the term "consequences." Do you actually think that suffering is the only metric of whether an action is moral or not? Do you really think that "suffering" is the only negative consequence an action can have? Murdering somebody is an obvious example of an act that is evil regardless of whether and how much the victim suffers in the process. Sure, torturing somebody before you kill him is more evil. But even if the death is entirely painless for that person, and even if there is nobody left in the world who cares about that person, murdering that person is still evil.

Here's what you said:

My second is about hell, I do believe that people should be punished for their sins but someone being burned for all of eternity is too much. Humans commit a finite amount of sin and I dont think its fair for someone to suffer forever.

I don't need to prove that every person who commits any possible sin deserves to burn in hell. To refute your argument I just have to prove that it is possible for a finite action to be so evil that it deserves infinite consequences. And I have done so conclusively.

 

[FuhrerMustang]

I am thinking of filling out an affidavit as an attorney as requested by Null for the proceedings to be live streamed. If you were in my position, would you do it under the "do as you would be done by" standard.? Take Nick out of it, how would you feel about it? Answers from fellow Christians would be appreciated. As well as other attorneys. Posted this in the rackets thread but it goes a million seconds a minute right now.

 

[Astro Loafo]

Oh, and you're better than Peter? I can't stand modern Christians like John MacArthur constantly denigrating Peter. As if they would do any better! No, you'd do far worse.

So you can't read. Cool beans.

 

[Seychelle Pennyfeather]

So you can't read. Cool beans.

"And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Mt 5:22)

 

[Astro Loafo]

"And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Mt 5:22)

Nice reach

 

[Seychelle Pennyfeather]

The Trinity is a heresy, and they murdered Servetus to impose it by force.

 

[Jewthulhu]

The Trinity is a heresy, and they murdered Servetus to impose it by force.

The Trinity is the most fundamental aspect of Christianity that all the major denominations can agree on. What heretical sect are you a part of that you don't believe in the trinity?

 

[Seychelle Pennyfeather]

The Trinity is the most fundamental aspect of Christianity that all the major denominations can agree on. What heretical sect are you a part of that you don't believe in the trinity?

Do you defend the burning of Servetus, then?

Jesus Christ is the Living God foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit emerges from the Father and from the Son. But the theological construct styling itself "The Trinity" was used demonically by church authorities to murder people, so I put no stock in it. I will have fellowship with trinitarian or nontrinitarian.

 

[Derrick]

I know his Kingdom is not of this Earth, but are there any major politicians in the US who are actually Christian/Advancing Christian ideas? It seems even the so called "Religious Right" is pretty secular when you get into the weeds of what they actually believe. I'm definitely not looking forward to another election between two closeted Atheists.

 

[Str8Bustah]

The Holy Spirit emerges from the Father and from the Son.

The filioque is a massive heresy and is one of the main reasons why the Catholic Church is no longer in communion with Orthodoxy.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to hedge my bets on the church that the Holy Spirit actively moves through, and which regularly produces holy and righteous men of such calibre that it's almost beyond comprehension. Fr Ephraim of Arizona is very much a modern saint, establishing no fewer than 20 monasteries in the United States, and he only passed away in 2018. Another holy man who hasn't yet been canonised is Fr. Seraphim Rose, and according to almost everyone who met him, he wasn't just a holy man but a veritable miracle worker.

Going back to the 1990s, we have saints like St. Sophrony of Essex, St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia, St. Paisios the Athonite... the list just goes on and on and on. There are people living in hermitages across Eastern Europe who you can go and visit right now if you want to who are absolutely saints in the eyes of the Lord, we just don't know it yet because we're all fallen and sinful and wouldn't know holiness if it smacked us in the face. I still don't even comprehend how the Lord could love someone like me enough to call me to his church, and yet I can't deny the fact that he did.

 

[The_Bladder_Splatter]

I know his Kingdom is not of this Earth, but are there any major politicians in the US who are actually Christian/Advancing Christian ideas? It seems even the so called "Religious Right" is pretty secular when you get into the weeds of what they actually believe. I'm definitely not looking forward to another election between two closeted Atheists.

I think that "advancing christian ideas" is pretty much a dead horse in the west, several decades of atheist activism have already secularized like 80% of religiosity that was part of most political procedures in the past, there are already many rising religions like islam cashing out on the faithless and disillusioned getting a slice of cake slowly but consistently snuggling into the population and politics, and the fact that there have been so many contemporary cases of priest abusing kids that they have eroded the good will of the general people, all we can do for the foreseeable future is to keep a strong faith and render unto Caesar's what Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's

 

[Devout Muslim]

Oh, and you're better than Peter? I can't stand modern Christians like John MacArthur constantly denigrating Peter. As if they would do any better! No, you'd do far worse.

I’m not familiar with protestant celebrities but I think Peter’s weakness is actually a key point of the Apostolic story.

When Jesus named Simon as Peter (‘Rock’), he was markedly not like a rock in his character. The Biblical narrative emphasises this multiple times. We should be careful not to impute those instances of his failings as as criticisms of Simon Peter, because in most of those examples, even with his failings he was usually still the only disciple who was trying to move towards Jesus. By the end of Acts we see the Holy Spirit has truely made Peter into a rock upon which the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was to be founded upon.

Also yeah u shouldn’t have been rude that’s not cool

I have a crisis of faith on two topics right now. The first is that not everyone in the world has had the oppurunity to hear the gospel and the story of jesus. Would it be fair to condemn someone who was never even given a chance to learn about god. My second is about hell, I do believe that people should be punished for their sins but someone being burned for all of eternity is too much. Humans commit a finite amount of sin and I dont think its fair for someone to suffer forever.

As a Catholic we hsve answers to these two spelled out clearly in the Catechism.

1. The doctrine of invincible and vincible ignorance describes how those who are truely ignorant of the Gospel will not be counted as rejecting it. There is still some hope for a type of salvation if they otherwise attempted to live righteously and strived towards God. This should be understood carefully as it is not an argument against evangelisation. Ref 1, 2, 3.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to hedge my bets on the church that the Holy Spirit actively moves through, and which regularly produces holy and righteous men of such calibre that it's almost beyond comprehension. Fr Ephraim of Arizona is very much a modern saint, establishing no fewer than 20 monasteries in the United States, and he only passed away in 2018. Another holy man who hasn't yet been canonised is Fr. Seraphim Rose, and according to almost everyone who met him, he wasn't just a holy man but a veritable miracle worker.

Are you American? Americans seem to have a particular affinity towards the founding of institutions. There are many great modern saints of all the Churches (the many martyrs of the various churches across the Middle East, the many Roman Catholic martyrs against in Vietnam, China, Japan, etc.). I don’t think only one is producing Saints.

 

[Derrick]

I think that "advancing christian ideas" is pretty much a dead horse in the west, several decades of atheist activism have already secularized like 80% of religiosity that was part of most political procedures in the past, there are already many rising religions like islam cashing out on the faithless and disillusioned getting a slice of cake slowly but consistently snuggling into the population and politics, and the fact that there have been so many contemporary cases of priest abusing kids that they have eroded the good will of the general people, all we can do for the foreseeable future is to keep a strong faith and render unto Caesar's what Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's

I know, but it's just disheartening how rapidly things have changed within the last twenty years.

For reference this was 2008:

This same guy's administration, now less than twenty years later, has filed an amicus curie brief in support of the LGBT side in a case which would have forced people with Religious Objections to provide their services towards a Gay Wedding. From, "I don't support Gay Marriage," to "I support Gay Marriage and think Christians should be compelled to partake in the ceremony," in under two decades.

I know this is just one example and one issue but it's disheartening to see how rapidly people who once championed "Christian Values" have rapidly did an about face on the issue. I suppose they never really cared about the faith in the first place.

 

[Str8Bustah]

Are you American? Americans seem to have a particular affinity towards the founding of institutions. There are many great modern saints of all the Churches (the many martyrs of the various churches across the Middle East, the many Roman Catholic martyrs against in Vietnam, China, Japan, etc.). I don’t think only one is producing Saints.

I'm not American at all, Orthodoxy just has the largest amount of saints in it by a country mile, especially when you count all of the martyrs which came from Eastern Europe during the periods when everyone started getting really uppity over the results of WW1.

Outside of that, there's also tandem facts like:

• Orthodoxy not having a single, fallible leader who can ruin an entire institution as each Patriarchate (which originally included Rome btw. Please repent and come back to communion with the other Patriarchates, please) only governs one specific area, which allows councils to arise with regards to heresies like Arianism. If Arianism had spread into the Catholic church at the time when support for Papal Supremacy was at its highest, I can guarantee the amount of damage it would have done to western theology would have been irreparable.
• The focus on the condition of the heart as the utmost important maxim vs the legalistic approach of following rules for the sake of following rules. While it's true that Orthodoxy has a lot of rules, and rules are a great way of fostering the virtues of humility and obedience, if you don't focus on the heart then you end up becoming like the Pharisee. The Greek church has an excellent word for this attitude, they call it 'οἰκονομία'. It's got a number of different meanings, but one of the most important ones is that you be lax with your brother for not following the rules-as he's only human and bound to make mistakes-and strict with yourself as there's always something you can get better at.

At its core Orthodoxy protects itself from human fallibility through decentralization and makes sure that the tradition of the church remains as unchanged as it can be, only accepting alterations to the liturgical cycle where absolutely necessary, and the overarching theology fosters a mindset where you judge yourself instead of others and seek to grow Love, whereas the Western mindset always seems to end up being more externally judgmental instead of focus on the ascetic struggle of self-improvement with the eventual goal being what the church fathers call 'Theosis', or in simple terms, to regain the godhead that was originally given to Adam and Eve prior to their fall, and which was returned to them after they were lifted out of Hell. I like to think of it in terms of a spectrum going from Masculine (Orthodox) to Feminine (Protestant) with Catholicism being stuck somewhere in the middle.

As an adendum, the Catholics may have the Vatican, but don't forget that the Orthodoxy has Mt. Athos, which is arguably the holiest place on the planet:

 

[Derrick]

1. The doctrine of invincible and vincible ignorance describes how those who are truely ignorant of the Gospel will not be counted as rejecting it. There is still some hope for a type of salvation if they otherwise attempted to live righteously and strived towards God. This should be understood carefully as it is not an argument against evangelisation. Ref 1, 2, 3.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me"- Jesus (John 14:6)

I would like to see the verses that the Catholic Church sites to back up their position.

Ironically, given your username, this teaching is actually more in line with Islam than Christianity, Islam allows Salvation for non Muslims so long as they are righteous 'people of the Book' (Jews, Chrsitians, and a group known as 'Sabians'). "Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians and Christians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve".- Quaran 5:69.

 

[Jhonny Jhon]

I am thinking of filling out an affidavit as an attorney as requested by Null for the proceedings to be live streamed. If you were in my position, would you do it under the "do as you would be done by" standard.? Take Nick out of it, how would you feel about it? Answers from fellow Christians would be appreciated. As well as other attorneys. Posted this in the rackets thread but it goes a million seconds a minute right now.

I think you should do it, honestly speaking. I've heard many people talk of how they'd abandoned alcohol, or are spending more time with their children since Rekieta got exposed for who he really is, and I think that exposing the extent of his fall by livestreaming the proceedings will only convince more people to not take those vices.

 

[Ser Prize]

Christian Kiwis, am I a heretic if I sincerely wish to be reincarnated after death?

 

[Str8Bustah]

Christian Kiwis, am I a heretic if I sincerely wish to be reincarnated after death?

Yeah, because it would be self-denial from God's grace and the gifts that the Lord wants to give you (mantle of the godhead, eternal peace and joy, access to the heavens).

Christian tradition states that the world is Fallen, that we don't belong in it as our true home is in the heavens and that satan has an immense amount of sway over it due to its' fallen state (The Lord permits this as satan's influence actually allows people to get really good at prayer. 'Get thee behind me, satan' isn't an insult, it's a call to turn your back on sin and use the devil's battering to help push you forward along the royal path), as such the purpose of life is to attain Theosis and return to where we belong. Reincarnation directly opposes that as a system of belief.