Supersoulty's Christian Theological Debate Thread

[12th Doctor]

I will also note that many Early Church Fathers who we know believed that Jesus was God made no effort to sweep Matthew under the rug.  Quite the opposite.  In the surviving works that we have from Pope Clement I, St. Augustine, etc, Matthew is quoted from quite liberally.  In fact, in the writings of assorted Church Fathers, Matthew is quoted from more than all the other books combined.  Matthew was proported to be the first of the Gospels deemed "canonical".  Contrast that with John, which was not as widely liked and even less widely understood at the time (even today, people who specialize in studying the gospels usually either specialize in either Matthew Mark and Luke, or they are experts on John) , but contained the most direct references to Christ as God.  If these early Churchmen were trying to sweep Matthew under the rug, as it were, in favor of a book that more loudly proclaimed Jesus as God, then it surely would have been the other way around.  Clearly, these men who earnestly believed Jesus was divine saw nothing objectionable with Matthew.

[12th Doctor]

Another thing I would like to mention, before I go off and begin the wondrous journey that is my Quantitative Methods homework, is that familial relationships as we understand them were quite different in the ancient world (this also plays a large factor in looking at Jesus' "brothers", but that is off topic).  They saw families differently, and they didn't have this understanding of DNA that we have now.  Adoption was not uncommon in the ancient world, and when one was adopted, they were considered to be, body and blood, a member of the family they were adopted into.  It was not uncommon for a younger man to adopt an older man, and when this happened, that older man became his blood son, in their minds.  When Joseph adopts Jesus, Jesus becomes his son... no doubt about it in anyone's mind, and Jesus inherits Joseph's line.

[The Mikado]

Could anyone explain to me what the Nephilim are? I've heard they were fallen angels, but no one seems to be sure on this. Also, did they breed with us? I have also heard that, and while that may be "out there" I wonder if their's any evidence that they did.

The Nephilim, to the best of my memory, are not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I've only seen them in the Apocrypha.

Genesis Chapter 6. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Let's bump this thread.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Let's bump this thread.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Let's bump this thread.

Seriously, this could be a good thread.

[12th Doctor]

Let's bump this thread.

Seriously, this could be a good thread.

You know, sometimes I think you want to be converted.  Anyway, now that we have a entire folder, I see little point for this single thread.

[12th Doctor]

Is it a sin to look at porn/masturbate?

In the Hebrew Bible, G-d strikes down someone for masturbating, so I would guess yes.  I don't think pornography is by itself a sin, but if you masturbate, then yes, it is a sin.

Onan was struck down because he refused to give children to his deceased brother's wife.  The story does not refer to masturbation in any way.  In fact, masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible.

Don't know if this was fully addressed yet or not, but I'll answer it because I saw it. The OT very clearly states that "spilling one's seed" is a sin. Onan was punished because he would not give Tamar a child, but, more specifically, because he "pulled out" early and spilled seed in vein so as to not impregnate her.

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Yes, but the actual reason for the punishment was because he violated a direct commandment from God.  The spilled seed has little to do with it, other than that was how he got around it.  It's not the big deal some people make it out to be.

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[*slaps self*]  [**slaps self, again**]

John 3:14-18 (Jesus is speaking to a Jew, a Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son."

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

John 3:36 (John the Baptist, speaking to Jews) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 
Acts 13:38-40 (Paul, speaking to Jews in a synagogue) 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you (quoting Hab 1:5):
 41" 'Look, you scoffers,
      wonder and perish,
   for I am going to do something in your days
      that you would never believe,
      even if someone told you.'"

Acts 2:47 (regarding Jews who were joining the church) "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

[Purple State]

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

Oh let us not go to the OT for this. Jews don't believe Jesus was a true prophet and if you look just a little farther in the passage you just pulled:

Deuteronomy 18:17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

And so from those other passages I assume the answer is: yes, Jews that do not accept Jesus in this world are doomed to Hell for all eternity.

Yes, but the actual reason for the punishment was because he violated a direct commandment from God.  The spilled seed has little to do with it, other than that was how he got around it.  It's not the big deal some people make it out to be.

This is a difference of our religions' interpretations. We focus on the spilling of his seed in vein. You focus on actually having the child.

[12th Doctor]

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[*slaps self*]  [**slaps self, again**]

John 3:14-18 (Jesus is speaking to a Jew, a Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son."

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

John 3:36 (John the Baptist, speaking to Jews) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 
Acts 13:38-40 (Paul, speaking to Jews in a synagogue) 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you (quoting Hab 1:5):
 41" 'Look, you scoffers,
      wonder and perish,
   for I am going to do something in your days
      that you would never believe,
      even if someone told you.'"

Acts 2:47 (regarding Jews who were joining the church) "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

There are differing degrees of rejection.

[12th Doctor]

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[*slaps self*]  [**slaps self, again**]

John 3:14-18 (Jesus is speaking to a Jew, a Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son."

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

John 3:36 (John the Baptist, speaking to Jews) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 
Acts 13:38-40 (Paul, speaking to Jews in a synagogue) 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you (quoting Hab 1:5):
 41" 'Look, you scoffers,
      wonder and perish,
   for I am going to do something in your days
      that you would never believe,
      even if someone told you.'"

Acts 2:47 (regarding Jews who were joining the church) "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

There are differing degrees of rejection.

I mean, you people believe that unless it is explicitly stated in the Bible, its not real, right?  That's your basis for rejecting tradition as a basis.  Well, I'm not convinced that it is explicitly said that Jews will be condemned.  Nice try.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I had a question of my own. In Christian theology, what happens to Jews who do not accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and consider him a heretic?

Anyway, as for your question, there are two schools of thought.  The first, is that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior in this life in order to be saved, which Jesus doesn't actually say.  The second, that Christ told us that he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, the healthy being Jews truly faithful to the old covenant.

[*slaps self*]  [**slaps self, again**]

John 3:14-18 (Jesus is speaking to a Jew, a Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son."

Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses, speaking to Jews) "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

John 3:36 (John the Baptist, speaking to Jews) "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 
Acts 13:38-40 (Paul, speaking to Jews in a synagogue) 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you (quoting Hab 1:5):
 41" 'Look, you scoffers,
      wonder and perish,
   for I am going to do something in your days
      that you would never believe,
      even if someone told you.'"

Acts 2:47 (regarding Jews who were joining the church) "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

There are differing degrees of rejection.

I don't understand the implied subjects and objects of your statement - who is doing the rejection and what is being rejected?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you think I'm going to hell or not? The only people it's harder to get an answer from is Jews. :-P

I think the Passover gives the clearest picture of who is and isn't saved:  During the Passover, the ONLY qualifier was the blood of the lamb.   The death angel did NOT inquire about anything else other than the presence of the blood of the lamb.  Death passed-over whoever had the blood of the lamp on the doorway of their house so that they were saved.  Whoever didn't have the blood of the lamb was killed.

So, the ONLY thing that is needed for salvation is to be covered with the blood of the lamb.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you think I'm going to hell or not? The only people it's harder to get an answer from is Jews. :-P

I think the Passover gives the clearest picture of who is and isn't saved:  During the Passover, the ONLY qualifier was the blood of the lamb.   The death angel did NOT inquire about anything else other than the presence of the blood of the lamb.  Death passed-over whoever had the blood of the lamp on the doorway of their house so that they were saved.  Whoever didn't have the blood of the lamb was killed.

So, the ONLY thing that is needed for salvation is to be covered with the blood of the lamb.

Is the lamb Jesus?

yes, Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=lamb&version1=31&searchtype=all&bookset=2

---

Who is covered by the blood of the lamb?

The very same as those who had their doorposts covered with the blood during the Passover:  those who simply believed what they heard and obeyed.

1John 1:7 "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."

---

Do I have to willingly accept the blood upon myself?

Not upon your physical self, for it is applied to you spiritually by Jesus himself, for he is the High Priest who sprinkles with blood, who entered into the true tabernacle that is in Heaven.  The earthly tabernacle of the Israelites was simply a copy of the true tabernacle in Heaven.

Exo 25:9 “Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.”

---

Do you think I am going to hell for not accepting JAMLAS (Jesus as my Lord and Savior)?

If you die in that state, then yes.  But you have not stumbled so as to fall beyond recovery, so if you do not persist in unbelief, then you can surely be saved.

[Purple State]

So the answer is yes, those who do not accept JAMLAS are going to hell. Can't wait. I hear there is wi-fi down there.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So the answer is yes, those who do not accept JAMLAS are going to hell. Can't wait. I hear there is wi-fi down there.

Oh, well...whatever floats your boat

[Scam of God]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

[Alcon]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

That does not constitute "nihilism," and I do have to point out that the ends of your implied philosophy could be a soma-infused clusterf**k of id fulfillment without even the hint of autonomy; in and of itself, not objectively better than quote-nihilism-endquote.

"Proving you wrong" is a little vulgar but whatev

[12th Doctor]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

Okay...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

Once of the original heresies condemned by the Church.  What do I win?

[Scam of God]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

That does not constitute "nihilism,"

It most certainly does.

What  is Christianity's primary claim about this life? That it is of "the world, the flesh and the Devil"; that it is to be abnegated, as far as possible; and that 'the beyond' is a purer sphere of existence where "He will wipe every tear from (the Christians) eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain."

What is implied in this philosophy? Simply this: that this lesser mortal coil derives its value only in relation to the beyond; that it lacks any innate value; indeed, that it is frequently malignant. The very act of devaluing this life is in itself nihilistic, just as nihilistic and more as any atheistic existentialism; the very word 'nihility' means 'absence of value'.

Historically, of course, this is certain understandable: Christianity formed among the lower Judean classes as a means to undermine the sensualistic ethos of their Latin masters. In doing so, however, the proto-Christians undermined the value of physicality itself, a doctrine that would find ultimate expression in the ancient practice of "Mortification of the Flesh", and in Manila every Easter today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly the point: complete absorption of the individual (the 'soul', as it were) into a greater unity - the dissolution of the boundaries between the senses and the sensed - which leads, ultimately, to the complete obliteration of the ego is exactly the end-goal of my philosophy. And this is not some form of individualistic libertinism; to the contrary, the concept of 'individual' implies some static center to man, some kernel of truth, some... soul. Individualism is a Christian phenomenon. The intended result of Dionysian praxis is total, joyous self-obliteration.

I am also a nihilist. Just in the opposite direction, for the opposite reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know very well what Gnosticism is. That's not what I'm talking about. The Gnostics questioned the reality of the flesh (because it was evil); 'mere' Christians inquire as to its value (again because it is evil). These are different branches of the same weed.

[Alcon]

It most certainly does.

What  is Christianity's primary claim about this life? That it is of "the world, the flesh and the Devil"; that it is to be abnegated, as far as possible; and that 'the beyond' is a purer sphere of existence where "He will wipe every tear from (the Christians) eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain."

What is implied in this philosophy? Simply this: that this lesser mortal coil derives its value only in relation to the beyond; that it lacks any innate value; indeed, that it is frequently malignant. The very act of devaluing this life is in itself nihilistic, just as nihilistic and more as any atheistic existentialism; the very word 'nihility' means 'absence of value'.

Historically, of course, this is certain understandable: Christianity formed among the lower Judean classes as a means to undermine the sensualistic ethos of their Latin masters. In doing so, however, the proto-Christians undermined the value of physicality itself, a doctrine that would find ultimate expression in the ancient practice of "Mortification of the Flesh", and in Manila every Easter today.

I assume the interpretation you're going on is:

1. The meaning of Christianity is found in the afterlife.
2. There is no afterlife.
3. Thus, Christianity teaches to find meaning in nothingness, i.e., nihilism.

Isn't that a little odd when Christianity is also a moral system?  Is fruitlessness, "nihilism"?

That's exactly the point: complete absorption of the individual (the 'soul', as it were) into a greater unity - the dissolution of the boundaries between the senses and the sensed - which leads, ultimately, to the complete obliteration of the ego is exactly the end-goal of my philosophy.

I understand this much:

1. You believe that the "soul" is more aptly a manifestation of the individual.

2. You believe that there is a "greater unity," which is the "dissolution of the boundaries between the senses and the sensed" (explain?)

3. You believe in the complete obliteration of the ego -- the definition and intent of which you'll also have to explain before I can reply competently.

[Jeff from NC]

Christianity claims that there is heaven, eternal life (in heaven or in hell), and that one's actions in this life play a role in determining how you spend eternal life.  For example, if you embrace God's teachings, love the lord, and turn your physical body over to God's purposes (and in the process restrain the body from taking over), you will likely go to heaven.  If you just sin all day like it's your job, you will likely go to heaven.  If this is your definition of nihilism, then, ironically your definition is so broad that it has no meaning.

Put otherwise: derived value is value nonetheless.

[Scam of God]

I assume the interpretation you're going on is:

1. The meaning of Christianity is found in the afterlife.
2. There is no afterlife.
3. Thus, Christianity teaches to find meaning in nothingness, i.e., nihilism.

Isn't that a little odd when Christianity is also a moral system?  Is fruitlessness, "nihilism"?

Not quite.

Christianity, to be sure, professes an (overly stringent) moral system, but the source of these values is rooted in the spiritual realm, not in "this world of sin and sorrow", as it were. In order to do this, and against the pagans (whose deities were gods of natural elements; whose festivals were life-affirming), it was necessary for them to remove the sense of value that the pagans had found in the beauty and wonder of physical being, and Platonically abstract it to a higher source. It is this devaluation of the world upon which Christianity rests - the location of all value and meaning in a godly sphere - and, because it devalues this life so thoroughly, it can therefore be called a nihilistic religion. Heidegger called this process the "emptying out of the world".

I understand this much:

1. You believe that the "soul" is more aptly a manifestation of the individual.

I do not believe that either the concept of a soul or 'the individual' is meaningful; both are useful lies formulated by the Christian religion in the service of its metaphysics, to divide man from the 'outer world' (in the Kantian, the noumenon from the phenomenon) and isolate it, to service its concept of a purer world beyond. I believe that our oldest ancestors would not have found the notion that they were distinguishable from their surroundings intelligible. You might regard this as a form of monism. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that the ultimate activity in life is a sort of ritualistic self-destruction, with the end goal being to once again re-experience primal oneness with the material world. This has no spiritual meaning; only subjective. And the result, of course, would be to completely destroy the boundary between subjective and 'objective' experience. This is similar to the teachings of the Buddha, though the reasoning and the desired result are far different.

Odd thought: would a being that could 'objectively experience' something be a God?

[Alcon]

Not quite.

Christianity, to be sure, professes an (overly stringent) moral system, but the source of these values is rooted in the spiritual realm, not in "this world of sin and sorrow", as it were. In order to do this, and against the pagans (whose deities were gods of natural elements; whose festivals were life-affirming), it was necessary for them to remove the sense of value that the pagans had found in the beauty and wonder of physical being, and Platonically abstract it to a higher source. It is this devaluation of the world upon which Christianity rests - the location of all value and meaning in a godly sphere - and, because it devalues this life so thoroughly, it can therefore be called a nihilistic religion. Heidegger called this process the "emptying out of the world".

I think that essentially leads to what I said -- it strips the worldly value and sets the value upon a non-existent entity.

I'd argue that it's largely ineffective in doing that, no matter how hard it tries -- we can get into that.  But I suppose my question is, why does this trouble you so much?  Is that really so much different than any other falsified state of consciousness?  What pisses you off, here?

I do not believe that either the concept of a soul or 'the individual' is meaningful; both are useful lies formulated by the Christian religion in the service of its metaphysics, to divide man from the 'outer world' (in the Kantian, the noumenon from the phenomenon) and isolate it, to service its concept of a purer world beyond. I believe that our oldest ancestors would not have found the notion that they were distinguishable from their surroundings intelligible. You might regard this as a form of monism.

Oh, OK, I think I got confused by the proximity with the "my philosophy" bit -- it seemed kind of discordant 

I believe that the ultimate activity in life is a sort of ritualistic self-destruction, with the end goal being to once again re-experience primal oneness with the material world. This has no spiritual meaning; only subjective. And the result, of course, would be to completely destroy the boundary between subjective and 'objective' experience. This is similar to the teachings of the Buddha, though the reasoning and the desired result are far different.

I'm sure you're sick of me asking you to elaborate, but a "sort of ritualistic self-destruction" has intrigued me, and the Buddhism bit wasn't enough to sink the idea in.

Odd thought: would a being that could 'objectively experience' something be a God?

Isn't God pretty much defined as objectively everythinging?  I'm not sure I find such an idea meaningful either way.