Misconceptions of Christian theology

[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.

[Minimalist]

H. L. Mencken observed " Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense."

Whatever the church claims it must first prove this most basic of its claims. Otherwise, it is just so much hogwash.

[FallentoReason]

I find that the only logical thing a Christian could do is believe the Bible word for word. I understand why some of my friends are compelled to do this, because if we diminish everything by saying the OT is metaphorical, supernatural events don't happen, evolution is true & not all disbelievers will go to hell, then what do you have left? Why even bother with the Bible if you're stripping it from all the essential things that make it the Bible?

I eventually deconverted because as I rationalized different parts of Christianity in a way that would align with what I knew about reality (but wouldn't take away from the core of Christianity) I was eventually left empty-handed. I eventually accepted that God doesn't speak to you, that miracles don't happen today, that morality isn't necessarily derived from the Bible etc and then I woke up one day and realised it was all lies.

You might want to be careful with how liberal you go, unless your aim is to unshackle yourself from your culture's default religious belief.

[jstrodel]

H. L. Mencken observed " Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense."

Whatever the church claims it must first prove this most basic of its claims. Otherwise, it is just so much hogwash.

I agree with what HL Mencken said. However I disagree that the proof for Christianity must come from someone else definition of proof. God gives people revelation of God's existence when they seek God. God does give a diversity of evidence to support the claims but it is really intentionally left leaving people with a choice. The certainty comes when people seek God themselves and surrender themselves to God and receive revelation.


What is the sort of proof that is required? Proof as it is required in a courtroom? Proof in a science journal? Proof for a jealous wife that her husband really loves her? Atheists talk about epistemological concepts like there is some sort of universal way to assess truth claims independent of culture and methodological biases. Of course there is not. This is pure propaganda, although undoubtedly some methods work better than others. I like the way of the monks, praying and seeking God in simplicity, brotherhood and love, without a deep concern about how to build the next hydrogen bomb. Science is not everything.

[Jackalope]

I'll tell you the same thing I tell Drich when he makes the same bullshit claim:

Cool story, bro.

[jstrodel]

I find that the only logical thing a Christian could do is believe the Bible word for word. I understand why some of my friends are compelled to do this, because if we diminish everything by saying the OT is metaphorical, supernatural events don't happen, evolution is true & not all disbelievers will go to hell, then what do you have left? Why even bother with the Bible if you're stripping it from all the essential things that make it the Bible?

I eventually deconverted because as I rationalized different parts of Christianity in a way that would align with what I knew about reality, but wouldn't take away from the core of Christianity. I eventually accepted that God doesn't speak to you, that miracles don't happen today, that morality isn't necessarily derived from the Bible etc and then I woke up one day and realised it was all lies.

You might want to be careful with how liberal you go, unless your aim is to unshackle yourself from your culture's default religious belief.

I do not consider myself theologically liberal. It is one thing to intentionally reinterpret a teaching that has been given by the Holy Spirit. It is another thing to question whether the Holy Spirit ever actually inspired the teaching.

Here is a point by point view of that:
1. Word for Word - The fact is that we do not have the original words of scripture. There is a diversity of scriptures and a diversity of interpretations. Answers to many questions may very well lie in the various textual and interpretative issues as well as translation issues and exegetical and hermenutical issues. God did not give people a bound Bible, God gave people a series of letters.
2. supernatural events don't happen - They absolutely do. I have seen miracles, they are real, the miracles in the Bible are real. The mainline protestant churches scare me with their rejection of the supernatural, this is clearly against what Christianity teaches.
3. evolution is true - I am not really sure that that Genesis intends to teach that evolution did not happen. There are two creation stories, that seem to subtly conflict with each other. Adam's name in the Hebrew means "man". Augustine interpreted Genesis in a non-literal way before the advent of modern science. Many theologians today doubt the exact reading that is required from Genesis.
4. Not all disbelievers go to hell - If you believe in Biblical innerancy, you should believe this, because the Bible clearly teaches that many, many Old Testament saints such as Job, Melchizdeck, the Ninevites, etc, are included in the plan of salvation, though they do not hear of the Gospel.


5 stripping it of the essential things that make it the Bible - I do not think that this strips it from the things that make it the Bible. The essential core teachings of sin, judgement and redemption through Jesus Christ are intact. The Bible is fundamentally a book about morality, it is not really a book about science. There is a whole range of views about the historicity of the Old Testament, obviously this is an important issue. But there is also a great deal of archeological evidence for a lot of the events in the Old Testament such as the rule of David in 1000BC. I do not know if Genesis is intended to be taken literally or if the genealogies are intended to be stitched together to bring all of human history together under one Father, Adam, man, and one Father who created him, YHWH. I do not believe that the genealogies of scripture can be literal and there is very strong evidence against this, but I don't see it as compromising the integrity of scripture.

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. So I think that allegorical approaches to scripture or less literalistic as in Old Earth Creationism make sense, maybe with gaps in the genealogies. There are a whole range of possibilities, I really could not say exactly what happened.

There are many Christians who have studied Genesis and are serious professional scientists who have considered these issues and have come to different positions. The true answer, like the origin of life or the correct way to unify quantum and cosmological physics, is really just unknown to people. That doesn't mean that there could not be any answer, there are many possible answers which do not undermine the Christian faith.

[Esquilax]

I agree with what HL Mencken said. However I disagree that the proof for Christianity must come from someone else definition of proof. God gives people revelation of God's existence when they seek God. God does give a diversity of evidence to support the claims but it is really intentionally left leaving people with a choice. The certainty comes when people seek God themselves and surrender themselves to God and receive revelation.


What is the sort of proof that is required? Proof as it is required in a courtroom? Proof in a science journal? Proof for a jealous wife that her husband really loves her? Atheists talk about epistemological concepts like there is some sort of universal way to assess truth claims independent of culture and methodological biases. Of course there is not. This is pure propaganda, although undoubtedly some methods work better than others. I like the way of the monks, praying and seeking God in simplicity, brotherhood and love, without a deep concern about how to build the next hydrogen bomb. Science is not everything.

Can you seriously not see how having to make a presupposition that god exists before you can find proof of god is kind of a wrongheaded concept?

[Aractus]

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".

[John V]

1. Word for Word - The fact is that we do not have the original words of scripture. There is a diversity of scriptures and a diversity of interpretations. Answers to many questions may very well lie in the various textual and interpretative issues as well as translation issues and exegetical and hermenutical issues. God did not give people a bound Bible, God gave people a series of letters.

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.

3. evolution is true - I am not really sure that that Genesis intends to teach that evolution did not happen. There are two creation stories, that seem to subtly conflict with each other. Adam's name in the Hebrew means "man". Augustine interpreted Genesis in a non-literal way before the advent of modern science. Many theologians today doubt the exact reading that is required from Genesis.

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.

4. Not all disbelievers go to hell - If you believe in Biblical innerancy, you should believe this, because the Bible clearly teaches that many, many Old Testament saints such as Job, Melchizdeck, the Ninevites, etc, are included in the plan of salvation, though they do not hear of the Gospel.

I wouldn't call them disbelievers. They accepted the amount of light which was given to them. Another example from the OT is Rahab. It seems God will deal with people directly if evangelism doesn't get to them.

5 stripping it of the essential things that make it the Bible - I do not think that this strips it from the things that make it the Bible. The essential core teachings of sin, judgement and redemption through Jesus Christ are intact.

Are they? See my response to point 3 above.

[KichigaiNeko]

So stodel.... you are telling us that you are such an incompetent hominid that you NEED a dogma to tell you what to do and how to do it??

You are incapable of figuring this out yourself??


well done.