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

[TIM4EUS]

@Sissyagamben you do realize that your heavy book method of throwing walls of text of the minutiae of valentinian theology doesnt make up for the fact that you clearly only have a "psychic" understanding of the material. what good is knowing all these details (which im already aware of) if you dont even understand what theyre actually saying?

the monad is the ultimate source, everything and all of reality comes from a singular source, which is God (not the demiurge, but the highest God). sophias mistake results in the creation of the kosmos, this is symbolic of the dyad emanating from the one singular source. the world of matter which sophia created is separate and unaware of the higher world of forms, IOW in practical speak people living in this physical reality only believe what they can sense with their physical sense and are unaware of the formal world of spirit, they suffer from agnoia which christ came to remedy with gnosis.

Evil in either forms of Valentinianism I mentioned is not the result of it being part of the Monad, or the primary pair of Ineffable/Silence. Or any of the aeons they gave birth to. All that are in the Pleroma are good, and evil in this world are caused by Sophia being silly and not properly giving birth. I don't understand where the "Monad experiencing both the good and bad" can come in

I never said it was the result of being part of the monad. do you not realize that in my original comments I was addressing someone unfamiliar with valentinian terminology? so why are you trying to skewer me for various perceived theological misunderstandings when I was never talking directly to you in the first place? I was clearly adapting the message to the audience.

to be precise, the world was in some manner a co-creation of sophia and the demiurge. this is the dyadic part of the equation, the dyad falls away from the monad and it is within this process that the otherness of existence (the good and the bad etc) is experienced. the monad/the pleroma is single, oneness, its full and perfect, the dyad/the world of matter is imperfect, lacking. sophias fall was part of the divine plan all along, its all part of the divine tragedy unfolding. accordingly, the resolution to the first part of the divine tragedy is the second part where christ comes in to redeem sophia and the world

They did believe realizing this world is shit is the key to salvation, but definitely not in the way you described. It's all shit because Sophia fucked up, not because God is both good and evil or whatever.

it puzzles me that you couldnt see that I was shorthand referring to the demiurge and the true God as one in my original comments (which were addressed to a non-gnostic audience). to be precise, the demiurge is the one that is both good and evil

just FYI, if you actually knew what you were talking about then you could discuss the actual practical concepts at hand without having to resort to arguing using walls of theological details. the fact that you try to artificially "elevate" the discussion in such an impractical manner suggests that you dont understand the underlying meaning very well but are trying to appear as if you do. you werent even aware of the valentinian exegeses of the epistles of the apostle paul which demonstrates a practical application of the valentinian theological concepts, which is what im using.

 

[Icosahedron fellow]

Entirely unrelated to the unfolding slap fight above me, but has anyone either watching this thread or actively participating in it read The City of God by St. Augustine? I’m probably going to begin reading it after I finish some of G.K Chesterton's works( The Everlasting Man, Orthodoxy etc …). I’ve already read Confessions so I’m really looking forward to it, but I’ve heard it’s a long, extremely complex work. I’d like to hear my fellow kiwis opinions on the matter.

 

[Standardized Profile]

But in thevKJV and Rheims -Doay (yes yes, my point is older translations) the word used is charity.

The KJV (and the original translation in its line, Tyndale's) uses love. Charity, caritas, would have been seen as too Romish. James liked old ecclesiastical words as a bulwark against the Puritans, but even he had his limits.

 

[Strix454]

Entirely unrelated to the unfolding slap fight above me, but has anyone either watching this thread or actively participating in it read The City of God by St. Augustine? I’m probably going to begin reading it after I finish some of G.K Chesterton's works( The Everlasting Man, Orthodoxy etc …). I’ve already read Confessions so I’m really looking forward to it, but I’ve heard it’s a long, extremely complex work. I’d like to hear my fellow kiwis opinions on the matter.

I've read a little more than half of it unabridged. It was interesting, but required alot of effort to read. The first parts of the unabridged work are a critique of paganism and a rejection of the historical arguments that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire. I had a particular interest in those sections related as much to history as to theology. i was interested in his arguments in the context of Edward Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire & Gibbon's enlightenment views of the role of Christianity in the fall of Rome.
I think though that the first half of the work is of less interest from a theological point of view than the second half. I find him good in terms of presenting very organized arguments for things. Especially for the time it was written. I find it a rewarding book, but not an easy book. Which is why I've not yet finished yet. I don't always agree with him, but I always enjoy his point of view on things.

1) We have Islam which stopped its spiritual and philosophic development since the "ban" on faisafa aka philosophy. All progress that the Islamic world made happened with faisafa on. Once it was gone, Islam stopped contributing to civilization. Most Islamic states are well-established shitholes. Christianity, on the other hand, allowed philosophical (and theological, as its essential part) to flourish which gave us Renaissance and enabled social and scientific progress. Christian states are mostly OK states.

My view tends to be that Islam thrived for a few centuries off the carcass of the classical world that it had killed. But that the bigger and more comprehensive the "victory" of Islam became, the more the intellectually sterile culture of Islam established itself. And once that pre-Islamic culture had been extinguished, Islam was no longer capable of anything.

 

[Icosahedron fellow]

I've read a little more than half of it unabridged. It was interesting, but required alot of effort to read. The first parts of the unabridged work are a critique of paganism and a rejection of the historical arguments that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire. I had a particular interest in those sections related as much to history as to theology. i was interested in his arguments in the context of Edward Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire & Gibbon's enlightenment views of the role of Christianity in the fall of Rome.
I think though that the first half of the work is of less interest from a theological point of view than the second half. I find him good in terms of presenting very organized arguments for things. Especially for the time it was written. I find it a rewarding book, but not an easy book. Which is why I've not yet finished yet. I don't always agree with him, but I always enjoy his point of view on things.

Fascinating. The copy I’ve got has supposedly been “skillfully abridged” so I’m hoping they didn’t cut out to much of the original substance. Somewhat unrelated, but who’s your favorite saint and why?

 

[Strix454]

Fascinating. The copy I’ve got has supposedly been “skillfully abridged” so I’m hoping they didn’t cut out to much of the original substance. Somewhat unrelated, but who’s your favorite saint and why?

Based on the photo from earlier, I took at the contents of the book you have. It covers both volumes of the City of God. I would guess that it simplifies and abridges the more lengthy and elaborate arguments of the original. Perhaps it gives you more of the conclusions than the long reasoned developments he often to get to the conclusions. The abridged is probably a good way to start. Even abridged, its really long. And if you find things in the abridged version that you want to go deeper on, you can find the full version and selectively go into it after you have done the abridged if really necessary. I think the abridged version will probably faithfully represent his basic line of argument in the overall work.

My saint would be Saint Stephen the Martyr. I was introduced to him and his story in a long fiery sermon by a really old man who really knew his stuff. It was an after-christmas sermon on why we should remember him. Then I read the parts of Acts dealing with his story and liked it for various reasons beyond the story I had been told. I liked it in the sense of someone telling a very articulate set of truth to authority and that authority responding by killing him.

 

[King Of The Kiwis]

Good thread guys

 

[HandsomeDan]

This is a very interesting question. If the central authority was truly good and holy then yes, certainly. But what we really see is that any institution built and operated by man is open to corruption. Just look at the current western churches going hell for leather down the path of LGBT promotion. So that argues for a degree of decentralisation. But on the other hand too much decentralisation shatters and fragments and creates individual heresies.
The church if its centralised must be constantly on guard against degeneration. It used to be, it’s not now
This brings me to another thing I’ve been thinking this week: the source of the physical documentation that keeps the church correct in earthly institutions is the bible. Corruption of the language of it and deliberately subversive interpretations of it are increasing. One thing I was pondering this week is the passage from Corinthians 13:4-8- love is kind, etc. it’s the classical wedding reading, mainly driven by Hollywood using It in scenes of weddings.
current year progs read this as ‘love’ meaning as in ‘the feeling of being in love’ . They then create this ‘love is love ’ idea with the bait and switch when what they mean is lust. But in thevKJV and Rheims -Doay (yes yes, my point is older translations) the word used is charity. Agapé or however it’s pronounce in Greek.
So the end result is all these liberal pastors quoting scripture to ‘prove’ that love is love. When really, that’s not quite what the passage means. It means charity. And even our use of the word charity these days doesn’t mean what it does in the bible. Maybe a centralised church needs regular refreshment, or a rabid adherence to original starting conditions.
I’m rambling anyway. None of these are easy questions.

Worrying about the "central authority" being truly good and holy is why I believe there should not be a human central authority. We have God that is central enough and then we have Christ further establishing the new covenant. All of our problems are the result of man made interpretation and man made tradition gumming up the works. The traditions overshadowing the Word of God is something Jesus specifically spoke against. The problems resulting from man made interpretations of the Scriptures can be easily fixed as they are not needed. The scripture is clear, we should be following what the bible says and not religious traditions. When man is involved, corruption is unavoidable.

For the sake of discussion on this is there something yall can think of that is not clearly addressed somewhere in the Bible that needs a central authority to make a decision on(I am genuinely interested to see if we can find something)? lgbt is addressed pretty clearly in scripture. Man made interpretation for the sake of feelings is why the lgbt cancer has grown within churches not confusion on where God stands on the issue.

 

[Otterly]

The scripture is clear, we should be following what the bible says and not religious traditions. When man is involved, corruption is unavoidable.

I agree on both these points. I guess what I mean is that man being involved IS what happens when we all have our own interpretation. But then we need to go back to the source to keep it ‘right.’ But then if the central authority is corrupt then … do you see what I mean? Maybe the distinction is a balance between keeping that central authority as a church or as the bible itself.
I’m more of the latter if I’m honest. I love the idea of a church that’s simple and focused but I cannot find one close enough to attend (or even not close enough.) they are all completely pozzed and so it’s just me and my bible, kind of hoping I’m doing ok.

 

[HandsomeDan]

I agree on both these points. I guess what I mean is that man being involved IS what happens when we all have our own interpretation. But then we need to go back to the source to keep it ‘right.’ But then if the central authority is corrupt then … do you see what I mean? Maybe the distinction is a balance between keeping that central authority as a church or as the bible itself.
I’m more of the latter if I’m honest. I love the idea of a church that’s simple and focused but I cannot find one close enough to attend (or even not close enough.) they are all completely pozzed and so it’s just me and my bible, kind of hoping I’m doing ok.

Look for a WELS Lutheran Church (avoid ELCA Lutheran at all costs) with a strong Pastor. It cant get anymore simple and focused on the Scripture than that. I thank God constantly for the church I have found for my family.

Again in response to your points what you say is valid, Im just trying to think as I study the Bible more and more (I was raised in Catholic Schools and its shocking how little of the Bible we were actually taught) what do we really need interpretation on. Im welcome to anyone's suggestion of a subject we can discuss that may not be clear in the Scriptures as it would be good for all of us to discuss.

 

[Betonhaus]

God's word is written on the bones of the earth, and his will is woven into the fabric of reality. His true story is written in a language we cannot understand, but we are steadily building the languages needed to understand it. The Holy Bible collates much of the Understanding slowly learned over time, but it can never be considered complete and final. We've progressed so far in learning the languages of math and physics, and we will continue to do so in perpetually. God exists before time and will exist long after time has concluded. He takes the role as the Father of humanity, slowly raising it and keeping it safe from itself. But now humanity is maturing, and no longer needs to be coddled or guided every step of the way. We will continue to remember His guidance and teachings, but we are now ready to guide ourselves.

 

[Kung Pow]

Perhaps, instead of sperging another 100 pages on gays, trannies, leftism, trump (yes, it will come to that), and other shit, this thread could concentrate on some actual theological questions?

1) Predestination. Do you accept predestination? In what form?
2) Trinity. How do you personally understand the concept of the Trinity? What trinity means for you? Do you think Christianity even needed Trinity as a concept in the first place?
3) Theodicea. Why evil exists? Why God allows evil to exist if he is omnipotent? Is the endlosung for evil even possible?
4) The concepts of heaven and hell. How do you envision those "places"? Do you believe in the individual salvation or immortality of one individual soul?
5) Do you think Christianity should be centralized or not? Do Christians need a Pope or a Patriarch?

1) Sort of. I'm don't think it is against free will in any form as many people have interpreted, because God knows all things and all possibilities of all possible universes and beyond, his knowledge is so perfect that, counterintuitively, it might look like that our actions are deterministic in some sense, but as I see it, it really isn't the case 100% of the time because we are made in his image and likeness to a lesser degree which includes freedom. I think it is good to understand humanity as a living contraction, we got a little bit of everything in this duality.

2) I believe it is simply his nature in distinct aspects, like when you are playing a character but more genuine to the core and true, something that we can't do like he does. Can the same soul be different people?

3) The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Knowing the existence of evil might not be good for my stomach or my mind, but there is no one to judge this greater work of God but himself, because he knows every nuance and every infinite detail that no man or machine could ever dream of. It might look bad now, but life isn't finish yet.

4) As I see it, the afterlife is the ultimate realization of the self and for that one is send to Heaven or Hell. Hell is a place for those who practice malice, doing evil for evil sake despite all the good, the inverse of charity. Like those people who rewarded evil for good in David's case in the OT. People who do malicious things usually don't want salvation, just look at all those people that are in Discord gayops, do you think they want God? Or are they completely fine and in love with their malice for good boy points in their circle jerk?

5) Yes, I don't see why not. Jesus gave the church to men that he knew very well that they would sin in their history, even saints aren't 100% clean from sin. And about the Pope, he knows the matters of the church, but his opinions about all the other crap you should take it with a grain of salt. And also God will not always put a saint Pope in the church because he might use that not so good Pope as a cautionary tale, punishment or who knows what. Judas saw the miracles of Jesus and was given the power to cast out demons, yet he betrayed him, imagine a fucking Pope.

 

[TIM4EUS]

It's not excuses. It's God's word. The way we see things is different to how God sees things. We are sinful by nature and many of us harden our hearts to him. And thus, we are punished accordingly. Like how a father punishes and cuts off his grown child.

Abortion is a sin. But it's not the same thing as described here. The reason why we don't have everyone have abortions is that God has called us to be fruitful and multiply. To love others as ourselves. Even when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and got thrown out of Eden, he still loved and cared for them and they went on to populate the Earth. We are called to have an abundant and fulfilling life here on Earth and spread it to those who don't have a relationship with God. To help save as many people as we can. Killing ourselves and unborn children is actively disobeying him and disserving ourselves.

I used to be like you and had my own worldly ideas of what God is like. As well as have pointless theory crafting based on what the world says. But the truth of the matter is, the only way you'll truly know him is to follow the Bible and seek others who do the same. And not just the parts that you personally agree with, but all of it.

you never answered me, just curious what your opinion was on this:

murder is also a sin. so killing innocent children is ok when God tells you to do it?

 

[YourFriendlyLurker 2.0]

2) I believe it is simply his nature in distinct aspects, like when you are playing a character but more genuine to the core and true, something that we can't do like he does. Can the same soul be different people?

I have thought about it too. If we utilize computer analogy, let's say I can play several characters on different servers. From the game's POV it would look like totally different characters while in fact, it is only me. That's an interesting way of thinking, even though I am not quite sure that it can be tied to traditional Christianity which after all postulates individualism.

3) The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Knowing the existence of evil might not be good for my stomach or my mind, but there is no one to judge this greater work of God but himself, because he knows every nuance and every infinite detail that no man or machine could ever dream of. It might look bad now, but life isn't finish yet.

In this case I am wondering if our morals and understanding of right-s and wrong-s is can ever be ultimatly correct. A person A kills person B and gets a life sentense. A is an evil killer who must be punished, according to how we see the things. But God's helicopter view may be totally different aka what are our chances of seeing Hitler in heaven lol? One may say that a person chooses himself if he wants to be mass-genocider or not, however does it come to contradiction with God's forknowledge for whom future is already present?

As I see it, the afterlife is the ultimate realization of the self and for that one is send to Heaven or Hell.

Kinda agree but it raises a question of what is the ultimate realization for one particular person. Was Kevin Gibbs' ultimate realization to become "TransSalamander" so that we could laugh at him on KF and make certain conclusions? Or perhaps so that other potential wanna-be troons looked at him, peaked, and said "no fucking way" and started fixing their lives?

 

[Overcast]

you never answered me, just curious what your opinion was on this:

The answer to that is, yes. But in the very specific instance that we've been talking about, it isn't murder. It was simply part of war at the time. As I told you, children are innocent in God's eyes and when they die before they can reach the age of reasoning, the age where they can make an informed decision on whether to follow him or not, they go to Heaven. Again, if those boys were allowed to survive, they would have become men and followed their forefather's ways, which include child sacrifice, therefore condemning themselves. Said forefather's had four hundred years prior to the Israelites going into the wilderness to change their ways, and they didn't.

God ultimately decides morality. Not us. Sure, you can look at this instance in history through a modern lens and say that what happened was horrible. And no one would blame you for feeling that way. But that was simply how things were back then. God certainly wasn't happy to have his people killed, but he allowed what happened ultimately for the good of those who followed him.

Now, I think I know what you're really asking here. Would I kill an innocent child if God told me too? And the answer to that is, no. I wouldn't. You wanna know why?

Because God already did that to his son, Jesus Christ. The one man who was completely without sin. He would never ask me to now. You see, everything that happened in the Old Testament was to pave the way to the birth and eventually the death and resurrection of the Messiah. Through him, we no longer had to do be bound by our sin. Back then, we had to commit to animal sacrifices every time we sinned, and even then, people continuously stumbled.

I'll admit, I don't quite have a full grasp on it all myself. I've only been practicing Christianity for about two years, and I've only been practicing as a serious Christian for less than a year now. All I know is, he's changed my life in so many ways. He isn't a god of evil or malice, he is one of love and mercy. And through him, I'm a much better man than I was a relatively short time ago.

I understand if you still don't agree with me. That's fine. I just pray that one day, God will help you understand as well.

 

[TIM4EUS]

@Overcast so youre saying that God is just?

 

[Overcast]

@Overcast so youre saying that God is just?

Yes.

 

[TIM4EUS]

@Overcast

The answer to that is, yes. But in the very specific instance that we've been talking about, it isn't murder. It was simply part of war at the time.

so this brings us back to my original question, why not support abortion then? youre basing the justification of murdering innocent children on the fact that it prevents them from living a sinful life later on:

Again, if those boys were allowed to survive, they would have become men and followed their forefather's ways, which include child sacrifice, therefore condemning themselves.

we live in sinful times, so why not abort everyone from here on out to prevent them from condemning themselves?

He isn't a god of evil or malice, he is one of love and mercy.

He's a god of both. im not the one twisting around the nature of God, you are. Isaiah 45:7:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

you keep criticizing me for trying to selectively interpret things and twist things around but so far all I see is you doing that. im actually trying to be consistent with what the bible says about God, which is that hes a complex character, and why not? he's God.

I understand if you still don't agree with me. That's fine. I just pray that one day, God will help you understand as well.

Im not criticizing the fact that you believe in God and I dont question your faith. keep in mind it was you that started this conversation and not me.

Yes.

this makes sense. if you look at all the sinful invasions/colonization that the west has waged on the rest of the world over the past few centuries, you can see how God has turned against the west by flooding it with immigrants using his chosen people as instruments of justice to enact this. God is indeed just.

 

[HandsomeDan]

I would have thought we could keep this thread going better.

In reference to earlier posts, what is something someone believes is not clear in the Scriptures?

 

[Betonhaus]

I would have thought we could keep this thread going better.

In reference to earlier posts, what is something someone believes is not clear in the Scriptures?

How to file taxes.