Misconceptions of Christian theology

[frankiej]

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.

"Right" way to live:

Dinnae be a cunt.

I don't think you need to join a church to understand that point.


Anyway, there is no "right" way to live. It is entirely subjective.

[LastPoet]

[Faith No More]

If you were trying to create one book which captured everything people need to know, it would be impossible to have the detail of a scientific journal and the accessibility and portability of a small book in the same book.

Even for God?

Anyways...what's the point of clarifying the differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christianity?

[KichigaiNeko]

If you were trying to create one book which captured everything people need to know, it would be impossible to have the detail of a scientific journal and the accessibility and portability of a small book in the same book.

Even for God?

Any ways...what's the point of clarifying the differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christianity?

So much for "one law under god"

[Esquilax]

If you were trying to create one book which captured everything people need to know, it would be impossible to have the detail of a scientific journal and the accessibility and portability of a small book in the same book.

My laptop and e-reader say otherwise.

That might sound a little silly, but it's surely not beyond the powers of a god to present those things, especially since we puny humans can do it. So it's not really so much about impossibility, is it?

[jstrodel]

If you were trying to create one book which captured everything people need to know, it would be impossible to have the detail of a scientific journal and the accessibility and portability of a small book in the same book.

My laptop and e-reader say otherwise.

That might sound a little silly, but it's surely not beyond the powers of a god to present those things, especially since we puny humans can do it. So it's not really so much about impossibility, is it?

How can God turn what takes 14 years to learn into one book?

[downbeatplumb]

Science is not everything.

That's right.

It is the study/understanding of everything that exists.

It has nothing to say on the Simpsons for example.

[jstrodel]

Having good theology is an integral part of assessing the validity of the Christian faith. One of the main problems with studying religion, is the fact that there are many separate streams of theology. There are Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, there are Quakers and Liberal Protestant, there is Neo-Orthodox and Charismatic and Dispensational theology as well as fundamentalist and then the various branches of Catholic and Orthodox theology. This is just in the modern age.

Commonly, atheists attack the Christian faith by pointing to fundamentalist Christianity. Now, I know many fundamentalist Christians, they are good people. But not all Christians are fundamentalist.

Here are some things to consider:
======================
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.
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.
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.
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.
5. Not all Christians historically have supported things that atheists typically criticize Christians for, slavery, the crusades, etc. Christians like William Wilberforce and John Wesley and Abraham Lincoln were actively opposed to slavery. Many Christians through history have been pacifists such as the Quakers, Mennonites, some Catholics like Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement as parts of the Catholic Monastic 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.


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.

While I agree with you up until a certain point, you sound like an extremely liberal Christian - and at that point, what's the difference between being a Christian and not being one? Christians are supposed to face persecution, Christians are not supposed to embrace the "worldly way".

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 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.

[John V]

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 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.

You seem to be taking a cookie-cutter approach to Christianity. I would argue, as Paul did, that while we're all of one body, we're different parts of that body, with different functions and purposes. While it may very well be true that the Spirit is not leading you to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis, are you really so sure that the Spirit couldn't be leading others to do so?

[jstrodel]

Hello John, I apologize if I offended you. I was not necessarily defending al the points of theology I posted above, only to point out that some Christians whom I consider to be very orthodox hold those positions. I am not a theologian and could not say definitively what positions are true.

Answers to many questions? Name the top five questions that we can't answer due to differences in manuscripts. The fact is that we have adequate agreement of manuscripts, and important doctrines are taught in more than one place in the Bible.

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. I had a Hebrew Bible which was marked up on many pages "meaning of the Hebrew uncertain". 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. I think that when you consider all these things together, it is not really certain based on one person looking into an issue that that will necessarily be so. Now there is 2000 years of Christian tradition to guide people into the correct understanding, and much that is written about the Bible. But it is still not foolproof. There are so many differences in theology between Protestants, on issues such as women in ministry, charismatic gifts, eschatology, calvinism versus arminianism and various other important issues in church culture and policies.

Are you sure that the NT intends to teach a literal resurrection? Some Gnostics interpreted the resurrection in a non-literal way before the advent of modern science.

Yes, but I base my belief using the Wesleyan Quandrangle of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. There have been many creeds and different Christian documents that together with the scriptures and everything else we have about Christ points decisively to a literal resurrection. The same cannot be said about a Young Earth.

Are they? See my response to point 3 above.

I appreciate your concern to preserve the Christian faith. I do not consider myself to be a liberal Christian, but I do not consider myself to be a fundamentalist either. This is certainly possible, I believe what I believe because I believe that these were the events that were revealed by God and what actually happened. I do not believe I have some sort of revisionist view of Christianity, I do not think the Bible ever intended to affirm the things that some fundamentalists teach (e.g. double predestination).

---

Science is not everything.

That's right.

It is the study/understanding of everything that exists.

It has nothing to say on the Simpsons for example.

Science is not the study of everything that exists. This is a ill informed view of science. Science studies the material universe. It is the height of arrogance to assume that the material universe exhausts everything that exists.

---

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 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.

You seem to be taking a cookie-cutter approach to Christianity. I would argue, as Paul did, that while we're all of one body, we're different parts of that body, with different functions and purposes. While it may very well be true that the Spirit is not leading you to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis, are you really so sure that the Spirit couldn't be leading others to do so?

No, I am not sure. I do not know whether evolution is true or not. There is convincing evidence for evolutionary theory and many Christians accept it. I am not saying that I think it is wrong for people to argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis, I am saying that I don't think that is the essence of Christianity and what the Bible teaches. There are some distinguished scientists that have been Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, the inventor of the MIR machine, etc.

What I am saying is that none of this is the distinguishing thing that seperates Christians from non-Christians. Some Christians accept evolutionary theory, others do not. I think people are entitled to their own opinions, but for an atheist who has strong views on evolutionary theory, perhaps because they deal with the details of evolutionary theory on a day to day basis as an evolutionary biologist or something like that, I do not see why they should have to see acceptance of evolutionary theory as a central pillar of Christian doctrine.

There are many Christian theologians and Bible scholars who have accepted evolutionary theory. What I am saying is that there are many points of doctrine that I do not understand and I could not say if they are true or not, and the details of these points of doctrine really is incidental to the truth of Christianity, which is about holiness more than interpretation of Genesis.