Misconceptions of Christian theology

[jstrodel]

I think you should be careful in your wording.

The misconceptions OF christianity would include such things as jesus being god, bible being divinely inspired, there having been some form of original sin, etc, etc.

The misconceptions ABOUT christianty would include such things as it give people good morality, it provides comfort in real adversity, etc.

The two are definitely not the same thing. I believe you are trying to quibble about the misconceptions ABOUT christianty , you would certainly be much interested in discussing the misconceptions OF christianity

You are just repeating your beliefs, without evidence. Those words do not signify any of the things you are saying.

[genkaus]

Commonly, atheists attack the Christian faith by pointing to fundamentalist Christianity.

No, I'm more of a free range atheist. I'd attack Christianity where I see an opening.

1. Not all Christians are young earth creationist / Not all Christians reject evolution. A recent study that I saw said that 48% of evangelical seminary professors accept evolution theory. Many high profile scientists who are evangelicals accept evolutionary theory, such as Francis Collins. Gregory Mendel, the father of modern genetics was a Christian, as are many other scientists whose work has impacted evolutionary theory. Also, not all Christians accept a global flood. Many Christians have basically or near complete agreement with the secular science world, except as it relates to philosophical teachings like naturalism.

So, they accept all the consequences and results of naturalism - things there is a mountain of evidence for and what they'd look like idiots for rejecting - but they reject the premise all that is based on? That sounds rational.

2. Not all Christians believe that all unbelievers will go to hell. A range of positions that have been taught by such authoritative figures as John Wesley, CS Lewis, Billy Graham, Zwingli, (maybe) Aquinas, (I think) Justin Matyr, Origen and other Cappocian Fathers and many others. There is Biblical support for this view which you can see in the salvation of Job, Melchizideck and the Ninevites.

So, some of them figured out that it is unconscionable to punish someone for their beliefs instead of their actions? What do they want? A gold star?

3. Not all Christians minimize spirituality and prayer or trivialize it. Many churches in America do not take prayer or the supernatural seriously. Maybe you grew up in one of these churches and never experienced anything. I am sorry to hear that. I have traveled and been to monasteries, to charismatic prayer ministries, and to other churches where I have seen the Holy Spirit and seen a vibrant Christian spiritual life. I have experience this on my own. I understand some churches do not get into all this sort of stuff, but if you have not experienced it, that does not mean that it is not real. I promise you that it is real, and what I have seen is so clear to me, I would literally send you $100 if doing that could convince you of what I have seen. It is so real, it has changed my life.

Oh, the experiences are real alright. What's not real is the purported cause of those experience. You really think that churches perpetuating that fraud would be a point in favor of Christianity?

4. Not all Christians have traditional opinions on gender. Gordon Fee is a Pentecostal theologian who has advocated for egalitarian gender roles. I attended a church that had a female pastor and many female medical students. There are many churches that do not follow the traditional gender roles but understand versus such as "there is no jew or greek, male nor female, barbarian Scythian slave nor free but Christ is all and in all" Galatians to teach that God gifts all people equally.

Was that before or after the feminist movement?

6. Not all Christians are theocratic. Many Christians support Ron Paul or Democratic politicians in America and oppose figures like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.

So some of them do have the good sense to realize that the current system is superior. Is that because of their theology or inspite of it?

Basically, what the Christian church does teach is that there is a right way to live, and that people must live right otherwise they will reap what they sow.

And that theirs' is the right way.

You are not coming up with anything new here. I know that people can be moral and rational despite their Christianity. In fact, I think that that is one of the basic features of humanity - to make sense of the world we live in and to live according to what we've learned. Most of the things you mention here do not occur because of Christianity - they occur inspite of it. Over the many centuries, people have been going towards a more rational and logical outlook and your non-fundamentalist Christian theology is nothing more than an attempt to hold onto the past beliefs. Given the whole mish-mash of random and contradictory ideas that form the basis of Christianity, it is not surprising that theologians would find something - some trick of words or obscure interpretations - to support what the rational part of their minds tells them to be true or right.

[Aractus]

I don't feel like there is really any part of the Bible that I reject or anything that I am unorthodox in. The difference between being a Christian and a non-Christian is that Christians are called to live in holiness and to obey the Holy Spirit.

• I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

FYI I'm not suggesting an extremist view on this like the JW's practise.

• But (Jesus) said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

And...

• What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?

I do not think the difference is that Christians are supposed to debate unbelievers about evolutionary theory or something like that and faith is basically a duty to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I am personally unsure as to whether evolutionary theory is the best explanation of life.

There are many problems with the theory of evolution, it's a theory and to be honest the theory barely passes as science. That said, there is a clear mechanism that causes life to evolve, even if we don't fully understand how it works. The universe has been designed for life. Elements and structures that support it and allow it to thrive are in place.

[KichigaiNeko]

What amazes is that people NEED to be TAUGHT how to live well?

What ARE you religious nutjobs? Zombies?

[LastPoet]

There are many problems with the theory of evolution, it's a theory and to be honest the theory barely passes as science. That said, there is a clear mechanism that causes life to evolve, even if we don't fully understand how it works. The universe has been designed for life. Elements and structures that support it and allow it to thrive are in place.

Wow, so many misconceptions in a simple paragraph.

1. A theory, scientifically is the peak of any scientific endeavour, and has litterally tons of evidence.

2. That mechanism is evolution, change over time. The theory of evolution its our best explanation of the processes that allow evolution to happen.

3. The classic error that you are making is to think the universe is designed for life. You are wrong, life as we know it, adapted and evolved on certain well documented conditions, and most of the universe doesn't allow life to exist.

4. And this serves to JohnV too: Evolution has nothing to do about how life arose, that is Abiogenesis, evolution explains change of life forms and its diversity over time.

[Aractus]

I think that the cumulative differences in manuscripts. interpretation and theological presuppositions creates a situation in which there are many, many differences on many issues.

Okay, firstly "cumulative differences in manuscripts" isn't a problem. If anything it allows us very clearly in at least 99% of instances of textual disagreement to quickly and efficiently work out the correct wording of a sentence or line of text or paragraph or passage. Most of the textual differences create no meaningful difference.

I had a Hebrew Bible which was marked up on many pages "meaning of the Hebrew uncertain".

That's another issue entirely, and mostly a non-issue. Firstly, you're lying if you say that it's in "many places", it's in only a few places. Most scholars tend to agree that in most cases the erroneous hebrew text is simply orphaned letters left over from shortening a word to simpler spelling.

A good example of this is 1 Samuel 13:1.

First allow me to give you a literal translation of the Hebrew:

"Saul [was] one year [old] when he became king, and he reigned two years over Israel."

That's all very well and good, yet in the very next verse:

"Saul chose three thousand men of Israel. Two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and the hill country of Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin. The rest of the people he sent home, every man to his tent."

The hebrew word for year - שָׁנָה - incidentally, is not translated 55 times in the Authorised Version. That's a fun fact for you.

The vast majority of translators and biblical scholars agree that the numbers were lost in copying. They don't agree on how to fix it however:

ESV: Saul was … years old when he began to reign, and he reigned … and two years over Israel.
NIV: Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.
ASV: Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

Look at the different denominations. What you are saying is true, there is basic agreement between Christians in doctrine. I think FF Bruce estimated that the agreement was in 90 something percent. But why do the dispensationalists and fundamentalists use the KJV Bible but Catholics use a different Bible? The language of scripture does affect the church. And we do not actually have the original.

Let's separate these issues firstly. The RCC made the Latin Vulgate translated by Gerome in the 4th century scripture at the Council of Trent (16th century). This decision made the Apocrypha - found in Greek only in the LXX - and the LXX scripture as well. The LXX is certainly not divinely inspired in its translation, and neither for that matter is the Vulgate. Gerome petitioned not to include the Apocrypha - and it is from Jerome that we originally get the term "Apocrypha".

As far as any translation is concerned - no translation of the Holy Bible is holy inspired scripture, sorry to say. The OT is preserved in the Leningrad Codex - as well as what survives of the Aleppo Codex. We also have various other textual witnesses to the text such as the Qumran Scrolls which as I understand it contain about 40% of the OT text in early paleo-Hebrew. The NT is preserved in several forms, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus for instance, and also in critical editions such as Textus Receptus, and Westcott and Hort.

[Faith No More]

The anus performs an important spiritual function: it casts away evil and purges the body of impurities.

It also spews shit.

[Aractus]

Wow, so many misconceptions in a simple paragraph.

1. A theory, scientifically is the peak of any scientific endeavour, and has litterally tons of evidence.

2. That mechanism is evolution, change over time. The theory of evolution its our best explanation of the processes that allow evolution to happen.

3. The classic error that you are making is to think the universe is designed for life. You are wrong, life as we know it, adapted and evolved on certain well documented conditions, and most of the universe doesn't allow life to exist.

4. And this serves to JohnV too: Evolution has nothing to do about how life arose, that is Abiogenesis, evolution explains change of life forms and its diversity over time.

Say what you want - the theory of evolution is wrong. The theory is incomplete, poorly explained, poorly executed, poorly supported by real science. "Selfish Gene" or "Survival of the Fittest"? Since when do individuals in a species as a whole compete against each other rather than against other species?

DNA isn't a blueprint for life, it's a versatile tool used in the development of biology. Most DNA is junk-dna. Most mutations happens to DNA that is never used. What happens, what I think happens, is enzymes and proteins get swapped out and changed - and when that happens, sections of DNA previously "junk" become "active" and the previously "active" becomes "junk" ie inactive.

[LastPoet]

(...)the theory of evolution is wrong. The theory is incomplete, poorly explained, poorly executed, poorly supported by real science. "Selfish Gene" or "Survival of the Fittest"? Since when do individuals in a species as a whole compete against each other rather than against other species?

It is as incomplete as any scientific theory is. But its more accurate than any alternatives, by far. You wish perfection, 100% certainty. It doesn't exist.

You are so fundamentally wrong about what science is, what science seeks that you cannot see several examples of other animals fighting amongst eatchother, in their own kind, to gain supremacy. My first though is lions, an example that blows all your argument out of the water.

[FallentoReason]

Since when do individuals in a species as a whole compete against each other rather than against other species?

Are you being serious?! Sorry to interrupt, but some of the questions/statements you theists make give me the chills.

Have any of your ex girlfriends ever cheated on you before? For your sake, I hope not, but that's an example of competition within the species. Have you ever seen pictures of elk locking horns? Once again, competition.

Seriously! Lose the superstitious beliefs and get with the world around you -- with reality.