Yes, and I think it's also a distortion of what Christians believe. I don't think it's a valid form of argument to take what someone says they believe, reword it to make it sound grotesque, and say, see, that's what you really believe.
Assuming the crucifixion and resurrection all actually happened as Christians generally believe, aren't some non believers simply saying they find it hard to accept there was actually any sacrifice, considering Jesus was the Son of God and knew he would be back in Heaven with his Father within a few days?
I don't see that as trying to tell Christians "that's what what you really believe".
Assuming the crucifixion and resurrection all actually happened as Christians generally believe, aren't some non believers simply saying they find it hard to accept there was actually any sacrifice, considering Jesus was the Son of God and knew he would be back in Heaven with his Father within a few days?
I don't see that as trying to tell Christians "that's what what you really believe".
Science fiction has pondered this too. Suppose you can take a backup of your brain state, and restore it into another body, What does it mean to sacrifice your life? It feels the same to the dying you, but the resurrected you need have no memory of it.
If you know you're going to wake up from a nightmare, that's not the same as the nightmare being the last thing you ever experience.
As usual, the disclaimer that I'm not trivialising anyone's faith. It's a wonderful message, but it isn't for me.
What do you think is necessary before something can be a valid faith position? Some varieties of Christianity, such as Roman Catholicism, seem to define what they would accept quite strictly and specifically, but others seem to allow a much greater range of views. Also, I think it would at least be in the spirit of protestantism to see it as down to each individual and their understanding of the Bible.
In a later post (quoted below) you say you're heretical if you don't accept the Nicene Creed in it's entirety. I'm not sure whether all mainstream Christian denominations regard the Nicene Creed as authoritative; and there are some disagreements about precisely what it contains. In any case, it doesn't say anything about sin until it finally gets to "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". (Some versions says "remission of sins".) When talking directly about what Christ did, it just says "For us men and for our salvation" and "For our sake". It leaves an awful lot open.
That seems a bit strong.
What made it heretical by definition just to think female clerics should be allowed (or, now, to think they shouldn't be)?
And there I wonder whether there's anything that shows the CofE officially held the view that such thoughts were / are heretical.
Anyway, I think the CofE, and Anglicanism generally, raise some questions about what determines the range of views that are considered acceptable, or aren't. For example, there are the 39 Articles. From outside, it can seem that Anglicans all ought to have to agree with all of the articles; but if (as seems to be the case) many Anglicans don't, and they are not treated as failing to be Anglican, should that "outside" view be what we take the range of valid Anglican opinion to be, or should the actual beliefs and practices of Anglicans carry more weight?
You may have seen Nethwen doesn't think unorthodox means heretical - and I get the impression Sulla doesn't either. But it's not a disparaging word to me. I just take a simple approach.
So, for instance, the Nicene creed affirms the virgin birth. In my book that means that probably the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. And that will remain heretical until the C of E either rewords the creed or issues a formal re-interpretation of what 'virgin' is meant to imply.
I like to keep it simple - if for no other reason than to emphasise the need for the Church to continually update their articles of faith for a modern world.
Assuming the crucifixion and resurrection all actually happened as Christians generally believe, aren't some non believers simply saying they find it hard to accept there was actually any sacrifice, considering Jesus was the Son of God and knew he would be back in Heaven with his Father within a few days?
I don't see that as trying to tell Christians "that's what what you really believe".
That's a more than reasonable question. Especially since some Christians tend to talk like that too. It is what is called the docetic heresy - the belief that Christ was not fully human and did not really suffer in the way an ordinary human would.
I think my criticism only comes when that issue is not just expressed as a question but used as a lampoon.
I've tried looking back through the unedifying pages and pages of meta-discussion and worse, and rather than try to work with any of that, I'll just ask this:
What do those saying it's a central, basic, etc, tenet of mainstream churches that "God sent his only Son to forgive us our sins" -- or, alternatively, "that god sent himself in the form of his son Jesus to earth to die for our sins" -- think it means, so that all mainstream churches would agree?
If we are talking about the major faiths then the Trinitarianism would cover that I guess; although I am happy to be contradicted.
If we are talking all Christian Faiths; including the nontrinitarian ones then who knows; although I think it must still come down to believing Christ was acting for God in some way and that his crucifixion served some purpose.
Edit; I think this may be an opportunity to say It's An Ecumenical Matter
You may have seen Nethwen doesn't think unorthodox means heretical - and I get the impression Sulla doesn't either. But it's not a disparaging word to me. I just take a simple approach.
So, for instance, the Nicene creed affirms the virgin birth. In my book that means that probably the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. And that will remain heretical until the C of E either rewords the creed or issues a formal re-interpretation of what 'virgin' is meant to imply.
I like to keep it simple - if for no other reason than to emphasise the need for the Church to continually update their articles of faith for a modern world.
BIB Not if they read their bible
Matthew 1 24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
You may have seen Nethwen doesn't think unorthodox means heretical - and I get the impression Sulla doesn't either. But it's not a disparaging word to me. I just take a simple approach.
So, for instance, the Nicene creed affirms the virgin birth. In my book that means that probably the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. And that will remain heretical until the C of E either rewords the creed or issues a formal re-interpretation of what 'virgin' is meant to imply.
I like to keep it simple - if for no other reason than to emphasise the need for the Church to continually update their articles of faith for a modern world.
For Jesus to be born the son of God, it means that he was not conceived in the normal manner.
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Well quite - I'm probably thinking C of E, I'm guessing most RCs do accept the virgin birth. But most C of E's I mixed with didn't (I stand to be corrected of course). There is a tendency to paper over these gaps between doctrine and actual belief - which you will gather I'm not a fan of.
If we are talking about the major faiths then the Trinitarianism would cover that I guess; although I am happy to be contradicted.
If we are talking all Christian Faiths; including the nontrinitarian ones then who knows; although I think it must still come down to believing Christ was acting for God in some way and that his crucifixion served some purpose.
Edit; I think this may be an opportunity to say It's An Ecumenical Matter
I posted above about the mainline Protestant church that is influenced by " higher criticism, " though. ( meaning Biblical scholars).
I am looking at "what liberal Protestants believe, " that " vary from the literal to the symbolic" belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe that Christ was exemplary, but not God.
I posted above about the mainline Protestant church that is influenced by " higher criticism, " though. ( meaning Biblical scholars).
I am looking at "what liberal Protestants believe, " that " vary from the literal to the symbolic" belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe that Christ was exemplary, but not God.
The Trinity and the Incarnations are separate.
So do I in many ways and I am an atheist. So what makes their belief a Christian religion. If you are correct?
Well quite - I'm probably thinking C of E, I'm guessing most RCs do accept the virgin birth. But most C of E's I mixed with didn't (I stand to be corrected of course). There is a tendency to paper over these gaps between doctrine and actual belief - which you will gather I'm not a fan of.
I'm not either. Yet I fill in my own gaps! I interpret Christ's conception as "not man made". As in a spiritual awakening? I also interpret a lot of His words in the same spiritual manner as I see him as a highly evolved soul in the Eastern sense. I think you have accused me of filling in the gaps before but hey ho. None of it matters that much to me anyway and I don't mean that in a facetious manner. I accept and respect that it all matters greatly to Christians. We are all heading back to spirit no matter what we believe IMO and we are not judged or "saved" by anything. We are responsible for ourselves and our own soul's growth alone.
Well quite - I'm probably thinking C of E, I'm guessing most RCs do accept the virgin birth. But most C of E's I mixed with didn't (I stand to be corrected of course). There is a tendency to paper over these gaps between doctrine and actual belief - which you will gather I'm not a fan of.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't (some at least) Roman Catholics believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
I don't think I'm going anywhere with this question or making any point in particular. It's just something I think I remember reading about.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't (some at least) Roman Catholics believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
I don't think I'm going anywhere with this question or making any point in particular. It's just something I think I remember reading about.
I see. So how does that work when you consider this Bible quote I nicked from Psychedelic:
"24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
That implies the marriage was eventually consummated. Is this Bible verse a rough translation? Or is the concept of perpetual virginity metaphorical rather than literal?
Assuming the crucifixion and resurrection all actually happened as Christians generally believe, aren't some non believers simply saying they find it hard to accept there was actually any sacrifice, considering Jesus was the Son of God and knew he would be back in Heaven with his Father within a few days?
But that's supposedly true for all believers, not just Jesus. They're all going back to God.
I see. So how does that work when you consider this Bible quote I nicked from Psychedelic:
"24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
That implies the marriage was eventually consummated. Is this Bible verse a rough translation? Or is the concept of perpetual virginity metaphorical rather than literal?
You're asking the wrong person here. I have no idea how roughly the text was translated. Why would it be metaphorical? Sex is a natural urge but I do know of Catholic women who refuse to have sex after menopause sets in as they can't conceive any longer??? Translation may explain such a glaring disparity. I also don't understand transubstantiation or the no contraception rule which seems to divide Catholics and Anglicans. Neither seem to have any Biblical connection.
So do I in many ways and I am an atheist. So what makes their belief a Christian religion. If you are correct?
I doubt you see Jesus in the same way liberal Protestants do. The first big difference is that they believe in a God and that all are children of a God.
I can't speak for what every liberal Protestant believes, but it is possible to see Jesus as someone who taught the kingdom of God, that had a perfect religious personality and his will was completely compatible with God's will.
Or someone could believe in adoptionism, in that Jesus came into the spirit of God when he was baptized. ( not the same as being God).
You're asking the wrong person here. I have no idea how roughly the text was translated. Why would it be metaphorical? Sex is a natural urge but I do know of Catholic women who refuse to have sex after menopause sets in as they can't conceive any longer??? Translation may explain such a glaring disparity. I also don't understand transubstantiation or the no contraception rule which seems to divide Catholics and Anglicans. Neither seem to have any Biblical connection.
I think, for whatever reason, (some) Catholics believe that contraception is bad because it's effectively "killing" a foetus before it's conceived. This doesn't make sense to me at all, but it does to some people.
As for transubstantiation... I have no idea where that idea came from. I doubt many people believe in it anyway (they just pretend to). The belief that you're actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus is more insane than Creationism.
I think, for whatever reason, (some) Catholics believe that contraception is bad because it's effectively "killing" a foetus before it's conceived. This doesn't make sense to me at all, but it does to some people.
As for transubstantiation... I have no idea where that idea came from. I doubt many people believe in it anyway (they just pretend to). The belief that you're actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus is more insane than Creationism.
I think it came from wanting to control and increase as much as possible the income from the terrorised faithful. Nothing to do with Christ's teachings as as far as I can see. Just call me an old cynic!
Comments
Assuming the crucifixion and resurrection all actually happened as Christians generally believe, aren't some non believers simply saying they find it hard to accept there was actually any sacrifice, considering Jesus was the Son of God and knew he would be back in Heaven with his Father within a few days?
I don't see that as trying to tell Christians "that's what what you really believe".
Science fiction has pondered this too. Suppose you can take a backup of your brain state, and restore it into another body, What does it mean to sacrifice your life? It feels the same to the dying you, but the resurrected you need have no memory of it.
If you know you're going to wake up from a nightmare, that's not the same as the nightmare being the last thing you ever experience.
As usual, the disclaimer that I'm not trivialising anyone's faith. It's a wonderful message, but it isn't for me.
You may have seen Nethwen doesn't think unorthodox means heretical - and I get the impression Sulla doesn't either. But it's not a disparaging word to me. I just take a simple approach.
So, for instance, the Nicene creed affirms the virgin birth. In my book that means that probably the majority of Christians hold the heretical view that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth. And that will remain heretical until the C of E either rewords the creed or issues a formal re-interpretation of what 'virgin' is meant to imply.
I like to keep it simple - if for no other reason than to emphasise the need for the Church to continually update their articles of faith for a modern world.
That's a more than reasonable question. Especially since some Christians tend to talk like that too. It is what is called the docetic heresy - the belief that Christ was not fully human and did not really suffer in the way an ordinary human would.
I think my criticism only comes when that issue is not just expressed as a question but used as a lampoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
If we are talking about the major faiths then the Trinitarianism would cover that I guess; although I am happy to be contradicted.
If we are talking all Christian Faiths; including the nontrinitarian ones then who knows; although I think it must still come down to believing Christ was acting for God in some way and that his crucifixion served some purpose.
Edit; I think this may be an opportunity to say It's An Ecumenical Matter
So it appears that mushy may be a docetist! I suspect he will not sleep easy tonight and serve him right.
BIB Not if they read their bible
Matthew 1 24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
For Jesus to be born the son of God, it means that he was not conceived in the normal manner.
Well quite - I'm probably thinking C of E, I'm guessing most RCs do accept the virgin birth. But most C of E's I mixed with didn't (I stand to be corrected of course). There is a tendency to paper over these gaps between doctrine and actual belief - which you will gather I'm not a fan of.
Yes. But the nicene creed seems very explicit to me about what that actually means.
I posted above about the mainline Protestant church that is influenced by " higher criticism, " though. ( meaning Biblical scholars).
I am looking at "what liberal Protestants believe, " that " vary from the literal to the symbolic" belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe that Christ was exemplary, but not God.
The Trinity and the Incarnations are separate.
So do I in many ways and I am an atheist. So what makes their belief a Christian religion. If you are correct?
Should it have been 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless you're trying to convert them to your way of thinking'?
I'm not either. Yet I fill in my own gaps! I interpret Christ's conception as "not man made". As in a spiritual awakening? I also interpret a lot of His words in the same spiritual manner as I see him as a highly evolved soul in the Eastern sense. I think you have accused me of filling in the gaps before but hey ho. None of it matters that much to me anyway and I don't mean that in a facetious manner. I accept and respect that it all matters greatly to Christians. We are all heading back to spirit no matter what we believe IMO and we are not judged or "saved" by anything. We are responsible for ourselves and our own soul's growth alone.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't (some at least) Roman Catholics believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?
I don't think I'm going anywhere with this question or making any point in particular. It's just something I think I remember reading about.
Yes they do
http://archive.org/stream/legendsofourlady00budgrich/legendsofourlady00budgrich_djvu.txt
I see. So how does that work when you consider this Bible quote I nicked from Psychedelic:
"24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
That implies the marriage was eventually consummated. Is this Bible verse a rough translation? Or is the concept of perpetual virginity metaphorical rather than literal?
...yeah mate but thats bollocks, sorry, but it goes against the laws of nature.
and theres no evidence that jesus ever existed. you say he did, i say he didnt.
But that's supposedly true for all believers, not just Jesus. They're all going back to God.
Humans can be created in test tubes and even cloned. Does that go against the laws of nature? Jesus did exist you just dont believe it and thats fine.
You're asking the wrong person here. I have no idea how roughly the text was translated. Why would it be metaphorical? Sex is a natural urge but I do know of Catholic women who refuse to have sex after menopause sets in as they can't conceive any longer??? Translation may explain such a glaring disparity. I also don't understand transubstantiation or the no contraception rule which seems to divide Catholics and Anglicans. Neither seem to have any Biblical connection.
I doubt you see Jesus in the same way liberal Protestants do. The first big difference is that they believe in a God and that all are children of a God.
I can't speak for what every liberal Protestant believes, but it is possible to see Jesus as someone who taught the kingdom of God, that had a perfect religious personality and his will was completely compatible with God's will.
Or someone could believe in adoptionism, in that Jesus came into the spirit of God when he was baptized. ( not the same as being God).
I doubt you believe that.
I think, for whatever reason, (some) Catholics believe that contraception is bad because it's effectively "killing" a foetus before it's conceived. This doesn't make sense to me at all, but it does to some people.
As for transubstantiation... I have no idea where that idea came from. I doubt many people believe in it anyway (they just pretend to). The belief that you're actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus is more insane than Creationism.
I think it came from wanting to control and increase as much as possible the income from the terrorised faithful. Nothing to do with Christ's teachings as as far as I can see. Just call me an old cynic!