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

[SneedEyeMitch the 2nd]

@Mr Bunny I remember your post from the Conspiracy thread.

Stone carvings adorning the temples of Angkor.
View attachment 5975237View attachment 5975238
Now tell me, what animal does that look like?

To add, the word "Dinosaurs" was coined in the 1850s, mankind use to call them Dragons. Which explains why many cultures across vast distances have a tale or two about dragons.

I was wondering where you got that from.

 

[Mr Bunny]

@Mr Bunny I remember your post from the Conspiracy thread.

I was wondering where you got that from.

If you think stone carvings are cool how does photos of discovered dino flesh and blood sound?

Spoiler: Flesh & Blood

But there's more carving to be found like at Bishop Bell's Tomb

Spoiler: Tomb

Bishop Bell was said to have died in 1496.

What's cool Bishop bell's dragon is the Mesopotamians where making similar images long before 1496 showing it's not an isolated incident.

Spoiler: Mesopotamian Carving

and you already seen how the Stegosaurus was running around near Angkor that the artist managed to capture a damn good image of him to carve him into stone.

 

[Str8Bustah]

 

[Preacher ✝]

Time for some theological humor.

 

[LightDragonman1]

To think, some people claim that the Bible promotes things like rape and sexual slavery.

How would you respond to that?

Really seems like someone thinks that by going against it, they are "sticking it to the man and supporting women's rights". Or something.

Heck, most of the time people try to claim such things, they cherry-pick from the Old Testament, selectively ignoring the New Testament.

 

[Sulla]

How would you respond to that?

Short answer:
Tell them they are getting Christianity confused with judiasm and Islam.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

How would you respond to that?

By not bothering. I don't know why you are trudging through reddit. But that person is not looking to be proven wrong or right. They have an opinion and will do what ever it takes to spread it. You are doing nothing more than providing them with sport.
The fact that only one paragraph mentions the Bible and then the rest are just pointless drivel should tell you all you need.

 

[Str8Bustah]

To think, some people claim that the Bible promotes things like rape and sexual slavery.

View attachment 6400695
How would you respond to that?

Really seems like someone thinks that by going against it, they are "sticking it to the man and supporting women's rights". Or something.

Heck, most of the time people try to claim such things, they cherry-pick from the Old Testament, selectively ignoring the New Testament.

'there are two kinds of people who read the gospel: those who love it and those who do not understand it'

 

[Derrick]

Hey @Derrick I got a question for ya.

Based on your interpretations, do dead babies go to hell?

In Catholicism we have a concept called the age of reason, the point at which humans begin to be morally responsible for their actions. While there's no hard set age for it, as it varies from person to person, the rule of thumb is around 7-10 years old. This is also the point at which someone can receive first communion and confirmation, with the latter happening as late as 16. Naturally it can be any age for those who become Catholic as adults, but that's besides the point.

What I'm getting at is you're hard set that those who are ignorant of the Gospel, even through no fault of their own, go to Hell, so what about infants or even small children that can't read or are too young to understand? Do they go to hell too? Does being baptized make a difference? Do you believe in the baptism of infants? Does the faith of the parents matter?

I already explained the Bible's position in this post.

No creationism purists are retarded.

Belief in the Bible is not retarded, at least from a Christian standpoint.

Creationism purists like to frame this stance as a compromise or a capitulation but its no such thing. Good theology should not be at odds with science, because God is not a trickster or a liar, which is what creationism purists paint him as whether they realize it or not. God made us in his image, with reason, intelligence, and observational skills. He did not give us these things to then fill the world with lies and tricks, but if you ever ask a creationism purist about things like dinosaurs, fossil records, carbon dating, etc they will inevitably say something like "its a test of faith" or a "a trick of some kind" and might if pressed attribute it to the work of Satan. But Satan is evil, and evil cannot create, it can only corrupt.

I'm not a scientist so I really can't speak on why the consensus on fossils may or may not be accurate however I will counter you with this.

According to evolution believers, homo sapiens, as we understand them today, first appeared around 300,000 BC and then did... nothing for the next 290,000 there was basically no technology growth for 7,250 Generations. Men were born and died living as their 7,000 great grandfather did hundreds of thousands of years ago then, suddenly, and without warning, people began developing technology like agriculture and city states roughly ten-fifteen thousands years ago.

What's more likely? Humans came into being in 300,000 BC and sat on their asses for 290,000 years before deciding to start inventing, or man just began to exist around the same time inventions began happening (6,000-15,000 years ago)?

On a smaller scale imagine what life was like 290 years ago (that's only 1/1000th of the time). Hot air Balloons hadn't even been invented, we had no idea how to send a man up into the sky. Then, in just a span of less than three decades we've achieved interstellar travel. I don't know enough about the science to speak on the fossils records, it's just the timeline proposed often for when man first appeared vs when he started doing stuff seems suspicious to me.

Also how come of the 8.7 Million different species on Earth only one evolved into an intelligent form of life?

 

[Preacher ✝]

I already explained the Bible's position in this post.

Where in your Bible does it mention the existence of some form of afterlife other than Heaven or Hell? Are you saying you believe in Purgatory?

however I will counter you with this.

I'm not an evolutionist so you're not "countering" me, but none of that contradicts the idea that if evolution is real humans could be the exception to it.

Belief in the Bible is not retarded, at least from a Christian standpoint.

Turning the Bible into an idol is.

 

[Derrick]

Where in your Bible does it mention the existence of some form of afterlife other than Heaven or Hell? Are you saying you believe in Purgatory?

Apologies if I didn't properly explain, when I spoke of the mentally ill/children- people who couldn't accept Christ, I wasn't saying that they weren't in Hell, I was merely suggesting that they weren't being tortured/suffering. It's entirely plausible they were kept in some separate part of Hell free from the fire in some relative comfort. My evidence for this was Luke 12:47-48 where Jesus explained that while ignorance will not absolve them it will lessen the punishment (implying God considered ignorance a mitigating, though not totally absolving, factor). There are still only two final destinations.

No creationism purists are retarded.

I'm not an evolutionist

 

[Preacher ✝]

Evolution purism and creationist purism are not the only options in that debate. It's not a binary situation and pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Apologies if I didn't properly explain, when I spoke of the mentally ill/children- people who couldn't accept Christ, I wasn't saying that they weren't in Hell, I was merely suggesting that they weren't being tortured/suffering. It's entirely plausible they were kept in some separate part of Hell free from the fire in some relative comfort. My evidence for this was Luke 12:47-48 where Jesus explained that while ignorance will not absolve them it will lessen the punishment (implying God considered ignorance a mitigating, though not totally absolving, factor). There are still only two final destinations.

What you're describing is like the Bosom of Abraham as seen in the parable of Lazarus however its considered to have been a temporary measure for those who were awaiting Christ.

 

[Thomas Talus]

It probably helps to distinguish between "I believe that God created the heavens and the earth" and "I believe that God created the heavens and the earth 6k years ago and put in a bunch of red herrings to suggest it's much older because I don't get that the Hebrew term in Genesis rendered as "day" in English doesn't mean a literal 24-hr day."

 

[Preacher ✝]

Here's something I struggle with.

How do you square Christian faith and ethno-racist politics?

For example. I don't want mass migration of third world niggers, but does that track with what Christ preached? Did Christ not die on the cross for all of humanity?

 

[Rendang]

How would you respond to that?

Absolutely incorrect and incredibly gay; Slavery was a well accepted in the past with conquering nations. Instead of enslaving nations today through war reparations & PoWs, they just did it directly.

However, Israel had a remarkable amount of restraint and respect for slaves compared to it's neighbors. Exodus 21:20 says slaves cannot be injured or hurt, or the owner will face the death penalty. Exodus 21:2 allows the slave to leave out of their own volition after six years. Most remarkably, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 allows an escape slave (a sign of an unjust master) to live with you, and he or she cannot be punished for this.

Slavery did not include sexual acts either; God abhors prostitution in Deut 23:16-17, and likewise for owners of prostitutes. God was vehemently against all sexual acts outside marriage, and the punishment was stoning.

For comparison, Hammurabi's code (Babylonian law) said an escape slave must be returned to their owner and were punished harshly by slicing their ears, while temple prostitutes were a common practice in the Neo-Assyrian empire.

God wasn't encouraging the act of forced marriage within the testament, rather the opposite. He had to woo her (not destroy her) within a month, and if she's still unhappy, he would be unhappy, and she would become a freed woman in a month versus 6 years.

 

[umseriously]

Here's something I struggle with.

How do you square Christian faith and ethno-racist politics?

For example. I don't want mass migration of third world niggers, but does that track with what Christ preached? Did Christ not die on the cross for all of humanity?

Well look at the tower of babel. If God wanted everyone together, he wouldn't have divided them up into their own region.
Now of course, you'll find some people refuting that with some verses from revelation, but that's for the future when God has finally established a new earth where everything will obviously be different from now.

 

[Kung Pow]

It probably helps to distinguish between "I believe that God created the heavens and the earth" and "I believe that God created the heavens and the earth 6k years ago and put in a bunch of red herrings to suggest it's much older because I don't get that the Hebrew term in Genesis rendered as "day" in English doesn't mean a literal 24-hr day."

People who believe the 6k years thing often do not know that Moses is the one who wrote Genesis and I don't think God would waste Moses time explaning a bunch of vain and almost ethereal stuff he wouldn't understand, he was a busy man after all. God could, of course, but God made us with limitations and breaking it right after he made it doesn't look right, especially for something that wasn't that essential to know.

 

[Preacher ✝]

Well look at the tower of babel. If God wanted everyone together, he wouldn't have divided them up into their own region.

An interesting take, but wouldnt that contradict with Christ who ordered us to " Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

And we know when the old testament and the new testament contradict the new testament wins.

 

[Str8Bustah]

An interesting take, but wouldnt that contradict with Christ who ordered us to " Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

And we know when the old testament and the new testament contradict the new testament wins.

You can preach the gospel to the Nigerians in Nigeria. You don't need to invite them into your brother's house to preach to them, and if you're going to invite them into anyone's house, invite them into your own house, /not your next door neighbour's/. For context, I do not see any migrants living near the people who deliberately opened up our borders.

The way I view things is quite simple: We should help our brother of our own free will. We shouldn't force closer brothers to help our more distant brother for us while stabbing our closer brothers in the back. One is very manifestly not of Christ.

Christian missionaries do not suck people into their country like a vacuum and force everyone around them to deal with the consequences of their actions, they go out to foreign lands and spread the word in such places of their own free will, bearing their cross aloft for others to witness without trampling on the will of those around them.

 

[Preacher ✝]

You can preach the gospel to the Nigerians in Nigeria. You don't need to invite them into your brother's house to preach to them.

But if they show up uninvited, asking for help, are we to turn them away?