• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

A confused atheist.

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Well that's much more succinct that the way I put it! I'll remember that one.

As for your other post catherineanne, thank you. I'm just starting to think that my mind isn't suitable for religion. I just can't suspend my analytical and logical mind in order to believe.

Having said that though, I am enjoying learning, so I'll keep asking questions.

:) There is no need to suspend either your analytical or logical mind. I would say, in fact, that you need a little MORE of the analytical mind. Reading your posts at present reminds me of looking into a basket of writhing snakes, and trying to choose which one to grab hold of.

If you could choose one point at a time and allow us to deal with that properly before moving on to the next, it might help everyone. Maybe open a series of posts, one for each question, and then stick to topic. Just a suggestion; if you prefer chaos then carry on.

Christianity is not incompatible with logic or analysis.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
That was my thinking too.

Agnosticism is all about following the evidence and never being absolutely certain of anything, so that one's mind is never made up or closed. I'm not sure that's allowed in worship is it? Genuine question, not a p take.

The term 'agnostic Christian' is a contradiction in terms, yes, but the thinking behind it is not.

Christians have to remain open to doubt and uncertainty, otherwise their faith is no longer faith, and has instead turned into some kind of fossil. The prayer to remember is this one: 'Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.'
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
That's not really the same thing though as there are accounts of beethoven and Rembrandt in newspaper articles and the views of competing contemporaries criticisizing their works.

The key for most of those you mention is that there're independent, objective sources rather than disciples or followers etc who have a vested interest in the success of the Christian message.

There are external references to early Christians and to Christ himself in ancient histories (Tacitus, Josephus etc). I am sorry to say, however, that there are no external references whatever in those same ancient histories to YOUR ancestors, so this is clear evidence that you do not have any.

A bit of logic for you to unravel. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
How long were the gospels spoken before they were written down?

The gospels do not contain Christian doctrine; Christian doctrine derives from the apostles.

The likeliest dates for the writing of the gospels* are as follows:

Mark 60 - 75AD, most likely between 68 and 73.
Matthew 80 - 90 (+/- 10)
Luke/Acts 85 (+/- 5 - 10)
John 80 - 110

The gospels contain much earlier material, probably from collections of sayings of the Lord, which circulated among early Christian churches.

The earliest churches were planted in person by the apostles, and the earliest gospel was conveyed orally, not in written form. The written forms were only created when the apostles started dying, and there was a danger of some of their message being lost.

So Christianity's doctrine hasn't changed since 50 days after Christ died?

Christianity is a dynamic faith. The development and understanding of doctrine changes all the time, but there are certain tenets which have not changed from the very beginning; these derive from Christ himself and his words in the gospels, and also from the OT.

* From An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
So Christ didn't know that heaven existed and he wasn't sure he was going there? As that is the position a real 100% human would be in.

This is the case, from about the time of the Last Supper and throughout the Passion (ie his arrest, trial and execution), the Lord suffered the exact same doubt that any other person would have suffered. However certain he was of his ministry and identity before this, he doubted during the Passion. On the Cross he felt himself to have been abandoned by God. This state of abandonment, of utter aloneness, of separation from God; this is hell, and on the Cross the Lord experienced hell for himself.

Hell is not a lake of fire. It is eternal separation from God. We each of us create our own eternity while we are here on earth; we put it together piece by piece. It is either an eternity of being united with God's will and seeking his face, or an eternity in which he is nowhere to be found.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
I believe I said the belief that Christ could've defeated the roman empire was hilarious.

It is not hilarious at all. The Lord could indeed have chosen to defeat the Roman Empire. When he is tempted by Satan in the wilderness during his 40 day fast he is offered dominion over all the earth, in return for worshipping Satan. He declines, and later he says that his kingdom is not of this earth.

The Lord is not interested in political power because it is human and transitory (ie subject to time). Even the greatest empires rise and then fall; his empire is not a human one; it is eternal so it will never fall.

And part of his reason for tolerating Rome is that the Pax Romana allowed the very effective spread of the Gospel to all areas of the known world within a very few years of his life and death, and 4 centuries later the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity alllowed an even greater dispersion of the Gospel.

Therefore, destroying the Roman Empire at that point and allowing - who? Persia? Egypt? Assyria? to take over, would not have been sensible. None of them built anything like the superb road systems of the Romans. The Christian faith dispersed largely along Roman roads, thanks to a Roman citizen; St Paul. :)

You suggested that one of the reasons that christ's sacrifice was the greatest ever was that he let himself be killed by people he could've defeated easily.

Even if that were true, that seems to be a sacrifice of pride and status.

And you still havent addressed my central point: Jesus knew he was going to heaven for eternity after what is an infinitesimal amount of time in pain for an immortal god.

Well, here we get into rather deeper Christology. :) An immortal god is one who lives forever, but is subject to time. Christ is NOT an immortal god.

Quick overview of Hellenic/Roman paganism. The gods were the children of Kronos, God of time. They were all subject to time, and even though they could not die, they also could not turn the clock backwards or step outside of time. If a mortal died, they could not wind back time to bring him back to life; the best they could do was to turn him into a demi god.

The Judeo Christian God is different; he created time, and is not subject to it. He is outside time, eternal, and unchanging. What happens to him in relation to his interactions with us is ALSO eternal and unchanging.

Therefore, if an eternal God is crucified, that is an eternal and unchanging crucifixion. Look in any Orthodox or Catholic church; Christ is still shown on the cross, for the simple reason that a God who takes an interest in humanity, and who suffers alongside us, continues to suffer as long as any human on earth suffers.

The Lord himself says; in as much as ye do this unto the least of these my little ones, ye do it unto me.

In other words, he did not suffer for three hours, then died and it was all over. He continues to share our pain and suffering, as intensely as he did then; he took it all upon himself, and continues to do so. In our terms this lasts a long time, in his terms there is no time; there is the endless now of eternity.

Therefore, Christ is eternally crucified, eternally resurrected, eternally wounded for our sins. Not crucified for two thousand or ten thousand or two hundred thousand years, but eternally; outside time in the endless now of his existence.

God's name is I AM; denoting he that was, that is and that is to come.

We have existence that begins, continues and then ends, unless we share in his eternity. He does not.

In the Eucharist, we don't just remember something that happened 2,000 years ago; we partake of the actual Last Supper; the eternal Feast of the Lamb. There is only one, and each time we partake of it. When Christ first meets us he reaches to where we are; to our mortality. From then on when we encounter him it is where he is; in eternity. He is the bridge that enables us to encounter eternity every single day. The same goes for Easter; every Easter we don't just remember the Resurrection of 2,000 years ago, we partake of the one and only Resurrection, and it becomes here and now for us. Christmas; not a memorial of a birth 2,000 years ago; an entering into the very moment of the Incarnation; Christ with us. It doesn't matter about getting the date right; there are no dates in eternity. What matters is the endless presence of the Incarnation to us.

Our faith is not a historical one. It is alive, it is eternal and it is ever present with us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: razeontherock
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,503
10,870
New Jersey
✟1,353,160.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
On the evidence: How skeptical do you want to be? I find that most historians accept the Gospels as having at least some information. Even today most people will be remembered after their death only by a few friends. In the ancient world only a few public figures have the kind of objective evidence we might like. Jewish teachers also appear primarily in Jewish sources, etc. Indeed one of the most influential thinkers is Western history (Socrates) appears only in the writings of a follower, and there are questions about the accuracy of the portrait. Fortunately, in the NT and the non canonical material we've got a number of different visions of Jesus, some significantly different, so we're not dependent upon just a single source as we are with Plato. But we are dependent almost completely upon people who followed him. I think the most sane skeptical viewpoint is that Jesus really existed, and taught a peaceful religion, but rumors about miracles, etc, grew in the telling. I think there are answers to that, but that view seems a lot more plausible than arguing about his existence.

On worship: There are certainly people worshipping who are less than 100% certain. In the things that matter most there is seldom unambiguous evidence. People shouldn't ignore evidence, but at some point you have to make a decision, and that's normally a decision under uncertainty.

There have been some attempts to completely separate faith from evidence. Bultmann was particularly known for doing this. I think that's wrong, at least for Christianity. If what we believe is that God actually intervenes in history, there should be historical evidence. Conservative Christians at times also take a position like Bultmann's. Some of the most thoughtful conservatives I've talked to tell me that it's a mistake to make Christianity subservient to scientific and historical research. So Scripture is basically an axiom, not subject to external testing. I reject that as well.

But no historical evidence is perfect, so we will have to decide.

I'm less uptight about these things at least in part because I'm a bit broader on my concept of salvation. I'm inclined to agree with C.S. Lewis that many people will be surprised to find that they have actually been following Jesus without realizing it. Even Jesus seems to say something close to them in his famous parable of the sheep and goats. I am very much afraid that there are ways of living that lead to destruction. There are some commitments that are sincere but sincerely disastrous. But about all you can do is try to identify the highest and most creative vision for human life, which is supported by your best attempts to understand the full range of evidence, and follow it. I have to hope that doing so will eventually lead you to God.

Unfortunately I'm somewhat handicapped in this because not all forms of Christianity actually meet my criteria for being things worth committing to. And some of the most toxic are the most publicly visible. Ugh.

======

Note that evidence-based Christianity is in the minority. It's primarily the "mainline church", that part of it that doesn't use Christianity primarily to support liberal political causes. There's a growing liberal wing of the evangelical community that also accepts this approach. But in general the Church has rejected scientific and/or scholarly evidence as determinative. The portion of the Church that is willing to use it except where it agrees with their prior commitments seems to be small and shrinking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,503
10,870
New Jersey
✟1,353,160.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I Didn't express a clear understanding. I believe I said the belief that Christ could've defeated the roman empire was hilarious.

Actually it wasn't hilarious, and that is one thing that lies behind some of what Jesus did. 1st Cent Israel was a powder keg. Most responses here are thinking of Jesus as leading legions of angels, which is at least in theory a possibility (although if God wanted to take that approach, the Incarnation wouldn't have made sense). But Jesus, claiming Davidic kingship, as the leader of a large group of violent citizens was a very definite possibility. A few decades later it happened, and they did temporarily defeat Rome. That possibility was in the minds of both the leadership -- Roman and Jewish -- and Jesus during this whole period. Jesus explicitly rejected it. Believe me. Pilate wasn't laughing.
 
Upvote 0

Foolish

Newbie
Oct 21, 2011
90
1
England
✟22,715.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
:) There is no need to suspend either your analytical or logical mind. I would say, in fact, that you need a little MORE of the analytical mind. Reading your posts at present reminds me of looking into a basket of writhing snakes, and trying to choose which one to grab hold of.

If you could choose one point at a time and allow us to deal with that properly before moving on to the next, it might help everyone. Maybe open a series of posts, one for each question, and then stick to topic. Just a suggestion; if you prefer chaos then carry on.

Christianity is not incompatible with logic or analysis.

Lol.

I did start off asking a single question, but everyone answered it differently so I found myself discussing a separate issue with each responder.

As for the logic behind Christianity; I don't understand how someone can define their life based on what is written in a book which is after all of dubious origin. Not least because there are so many other faiths out there, some of which have been around longer than Christianity. This is just one such issue - there are many others, which I'm sure we'll get around to...
 
Upvote 0

Foolish

Newbie
Oct 21, 2011
90
1
England
✟22,715.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There are external references to early Christians and to Christ himself in ancient histories (Tacitus, Josephus etc). I am sorry to say, however, that there are no external references whatever in those same ancient histories to YOUR ancestors, so this is clear evidence that you do not have any.

A bit of logic for you to unravel. :cool:

My ancestors weren't god incarnate so unsurprisingly probably did get much press coverage. Besides, I'd suggest that it's logical to conclude that I did/do have ancestors.

I thought the descriptions of Jesus in the accounts of tacticus and josephus were in some doubt?

If memory serves; the oldest existing copies are 11 century, which means there've likely to have been a millennia of translation and transcription errors, which could've completely changed the meaning of their message. Indeed, in the case of josephus I understand that his glowing references to Christ are suspected to have been added by later Christian scholars.
 
Upvote 0

Foolish

Newbie
Oct 21, 2011
90
1
England
✟22,715.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
This is the case, from about the time of the Last Supper and throughout the Passion (ie his arrest, trial and execution), the Lord suffered the exact same doubt that any other person would have suffered. However certain he was of his ministry and identity before this, he doubted during the Passion. On the Cross he felt himself to have been abandoned by God. This state of abandonment, of utter aloneness, of separation from God; this is hell, and on the Cross the Lord experienced hell for himself.

Hell is not a lake of fire. It is eternal separation from God. We each of us create our own eternity while we are here on earth; we put it together piece by piece. It is either an eternity of being united with God's will and seeking his face, or an eternity in which he is nowhere to be found.

Isn't it more likely that he was a normal man who preached that he was the way to god and then had a bit of a crisis during his death?

There are plenty of examples of cult leaders believing they are divine. Jesus may have just been a very successful example.
 
Upvote 0

Foolish

Newbie
Oct 21, 2011
90
1
England
✟22,715.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
PHP:
It is not hilarious at all. The Lord could indeed have chosen to defeat the Roman Empire. When he is tempted by Satan in the wilderness during his 40 day fast he is offered dominion over all the earth, in return for worshipping Satan. He declines, and later he says that his kingdom is not of this earth.

The Lord is not interested in political power because it is human and transitory (ie subject to time). Even the greatest empires rise and then fall; his empire is not a human one; it is eternal so it will never fall.

And part of his reason for tolerating Rome is that the Pax Romana allowed the very effective spread of the Gospel to all areas of the known world within a very few years of his life and death, and 4 centuries later the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity alllowed an even greater dispersion of the Gospel.

Therefore, destroying the Roman Empire at that point and allowing - who? Persia? Egypt? Assyria? to take over, would not have been sensible. None of them built anything like the superb road systems of the Romans. The Christian faith dispersed largely along Roman roads, thanks to a Roman citizen; St Paul. :)



Well, here we get into rather deeper Christology. :) An immortal god is one who lives forever, but is subject to time. Christ is NOT an immortal god.

Quick overview of Hellenic/Roman paganism. The gods were the children of Kronos, God of time. They were all subject to time, and even though they could not die, they also could not turn the clock backwards or step outside of time. If a mortal died, they could not wind back time to bring him back to life; the best they could do was to turn him into a demi god.

The Judeo Christian God is different; he created time, and is not subject to it. He is outside time, eternal, and unchanging. What happens to him in relation to his interactions with us is ALSO eternal and unchanging.

Therefore, if an eternal God is crucified, that is an eternal and unchanging crucifixion. Look in any Orthodox or Catholic church; Christ is still shown on the cross, for the simple reason that a God who takes an interest in humanity, and who suffers alongside us, continues to suffer as long as any human on earth suffers.

The Lord himself says; in as much as ye do this unto the least of these my little ones, ye do it unto me.

In other words, he did not suffer for three hours, then died and it was all over. He continues to share our pain and suffering, as intensely as he did then; he took it all upon himself, and continues to do so. In our terms this lasts a long time, in his terms there is no time; there is the endless now of eternity.

Therefore, Christ is eternally crucified, eternally resurrected, eternally wounded for our sins. Not crucified for two thousand or ten thousand or two hundred thousand years, but eternally; outside time in the endless now of his existence.

God's name is I AM; denoting he that was, that is and that is to come.

We have existence that begins, continues and then ends, unless we share in his eternity. He does not.

In the Eucharist, we don't just remember something that happened 2,000 years ago; we partake of the actual Last Supper; the eternal Feast of the Lamb. There is only one, and each time we partake of it. When Christ first meets us he reaches to where we are; to our mortality. From then on when we encounter him it is where he is; in eternity. He is the bridge that enables us to encounter eternity every single day. The same goes for Easter; every Easter we don't just remember the Resurrection of 2,000 years ago, we partake of the one and only Resurrection, and it becomes here and now for us. Christmas; not a memorial of a birth 2,000 years ago; an entering into the very moment of the Incarnation; Christ with us. It doesn't matter about getting the date right; there are no dates in eternity. What matters is the endless presence of the Incarnation to us.

Our faith is not a historical one. It is alive, it is eternal and it is ever present with us.

On your first point regarding Christ turning the devil down: you are using the bible as evidence, which is dependent upon your faith in it.

You're second point is a good one- I'd never considered the unsuitability of the word immortal to describe Christ.

The control over time does interest me though. If god is in effect timeless then why then is there a shift change between the ot and nt? To a layman it appears to be wholly (or holy!) different in it's attitude - I believe some Christians call it the new contract? Why not start of with the love thy fellow man stuff rather than the millennia of fire and brimstone stuff? There seems to be a chronology to it, which one wouldn't expect in a timeless god.
 
Upvote 0

Foolish

Newbie
Oct 21, 2011
90
1
England
✟22,715.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Actually it wasn't hilarious, and that is one thing that lies behind some of what Jesus did. 1st Cent Israel was a powder keg. Most responses here are thinking of Jesus as leading legions of angels, which is at least in theory a possibility (although if God wanted to take that approach, the Incarnation wouldn't have made sense). But Jesus, claiming Davidic kingship, as the leader of a large group of violent citizens was a very definite possibility. A few decades later it happened, and they did temporarily defeat Rome. That possibility was in the minds of both the leadership -- Roman and Jewish -- and Jesus during this whole period. Jesus explicitly rejected it. Believe me. Pilate wasn't laughing.

What a good answer.

I like your pov. Not enough to convert, but yours seems to be almost rational and by far the most appealing to my sensibilities I've read on here.

Thanks for the patience.

And yours catherineanne (the patience bit, not the rational bit!;))
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Lol.

I did start off asking a single question, but everyone answered it differently so I found myself discussing a separate issue with each responder.

As for the logic behind Christianity; I don't understand how someone can define their life based on what is written in a book which is after all of dubious origin. Not least because there are so many other faiths out there, some of which have been around longer than Christianity. This is just one such issue - there are many others, which I'm sure we'll get around to...

Well, first you say you want logic, now you say you don't understand.

I think you will find it is not logical to want to understand everything before you accept that it is true. What is logical is to make a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence, even if that evidence does not at present answer every question.

In other words, you are asking faith to do MORE than science. How illogical is that? :)

And I think if you read my above post you will see that faith is not just about what is written in the Bible. I have already said this, but perhaps it did not register, so it is worth saying again.

That suggestion is a bit like saying all evolutionary scientists are simply basing everything on the Origin of Species. They would - I hope - laugh at that, and say, well, maybe that is where we started when we were 14, but we have come a long way since then. Same for the Bible and the Chrisitian faith; it is the foundation for our faith, but it does not define it or encompass it or say all that there is to say.

Christianity is a living faith with a living God. It is not just about a book.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
My ancestors weren't god incarnate so unsurprisingly probably did get much press coverage. Besides, I'd suggest that it's logical to conclude that I did/do have ancestors.

Indeed so. Just as it is logical to conclude that you must have ancestors, so it is also logical to conclude that worldwide churches do not appear from nowhere, and must have a provenance.

I see no reason to doubt that Buddhism derives from the historical Buddha, or Islam from the historical Mohammed - or for that matter that the Iliad derives from the historical Homer, so why would you see reason to doubt that Chrisitianity derives from the historical Jesus? That makes no more sense than you having no ancestors.

Perhaps a little science as a metaphor; matter can be neither created nor destroyed save in the form of energy. Similarly, a worldwide faith cannot be created without energy, and that kind of energy cannot come from Joe Bloggs; it has to be a very rare kind of person. People set up their own little cults all the time. Most of them die and are forgotten; a few survive.

Why do you think that is? Because they are founded on people who do not exist? That is just plain daft.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Isn't it more likely that he was a normal man who preached that he was the way to god and then had a bit of a crisis during his death?

There are plenty of examples of cult leaders believing they are divine. Jesus may have just been a very successful example.

Yes he may. On the other hand, the gospel accounts might be true.

That is the choice you have. :) Funnily enough, I no longer have that choice. Having jumped into the swimming pool, and found that I don't actually sink, I am not afraid of the water not being able to carry me any more. But until you jump in, you will simply never know.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
On your first point regarding Christ turning the devil down: you are using the bible as evidence, which is dependent upon your faith in it.

Nice try but no cigar. I am using the Bible as evidence of the character of Christ. I am not using it to base my faith upon, but to explain to you why the Lord did not destroy the Roman Empire and take over the world. Elsewhere he tells us why; the world is a small compensation for losing our soul.

You asked the question; I answered it.

You're second point is a good one- I'd never considered the unsuitability of the word immortal to describe Christ.

Good. That is an important distinction between the traditional pagan faiths and the Judeo Christian one. Most religions prior to Judaism were based on Shamanism; basically you had characters that are recognisably human, with human traits and failings, but with some kind of super powers. They have to be placated, appeased, mollified, coddled, and STILL they will be prone to hissy fits from time to time. Shamans interpreted what the gods wanted, and the people did as the shamans advised.

The God of the ancient Israelites does have some of these human failings from time to time; he is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, angry, murderous; even genocidal. But among this confusion there are prophets who point out time and again that this concept of God is inadequate; that God does not want blood from his people; he wants them to have compassion for one another.

Because they really don't get this very well, the Lord comes himself to point it out rather more effectively; by demonstrating to us the standard he expects.

The control over time does interest me though. If god is in effect timeless then why then is there a shift change between the ot and nt? To a layman it appears to be wholly (or holy!) different in it's attitude - I believe some Christians call it the new contract? Why not start of with the love thy fellow man stuff rather than the millennia of fire and brimstone stuff? There seems to be a chronology to it, which one wouldn't expect in a timeless god.

God does not impose understanding on any of us. As with your own example, it takes time to ask questions and even longer to understand the answers. No matter how clearly I try to explain things to you, the pace of understanding is determined by you, not by me.

The same goes for ancient Israel. It took them a long time to understand who this One God was. The shift change is only because we understood more clearly, having met God face to face in the Lord.

The chronology is ours, in other words. God doesn't mind; he isn't going anywhere.
 
Upvote 0

GuardianShua

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
8,666
303
✟10,663.00
Faith
Im an agnostic atheist but am really interested in religion, so I would apreciate any feedback on my musings.

From what I understand of Christianity, the central (not sole) principal of worshipping christ I that he sacrificed himself for us and our sins.

What I don't understand is that; many people have sacrificed themselves for greater causes in our history - why shouldn't we worship them?

Yahshua always directed worship toward the Father and never to himself. He did not come to be worshipped by mankind, but to reconcile mankind to God.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
What a good answer.

I like your pov. Not enough to convert, but yours seems to be almost rational and by far the most appealing to my sensibilities I've read on here.

Thanks for the patience.

And yours catherineanne (the patience bit, not the rational bit!;))

Why thank you.

How often does a person get a compliment like that?
Topol, FotR.
 
Upvote 0