Ask a non-believer questions on Christian Theology

[Theofane]

Ask a non-believer questions on Christian Theology

What use is academic Bible knowledge if you have no faith?

Even if you've memorized every word of Scripture and know it forwards and backwards, it's all in vain if you do not have faith.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, but it is off topic to the OP.

I cannot answer it according to the conditions of the OP except to say that believers would say that this the God that revealed himself.

I am not entirely sure that the question could not be answered under the conditions of the OP. On one hand you have the question "Why do people believe in God?" and on the other hand you certainly have Christian responses to that or at least similar questions.

You could for example point to revelation, i.e. the Bible, or you could point to changed hearts and minds that supposedly go hand in hand with accepting Jesus. And so on. It is certainly not easy though.

ETA: You did the very same wrt the question "Who was Jesus?"

I suppose you're right.

I did answer in the bolded section above.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Very good.

Although the Bible does have many verses that disclose this idea.

I did say "explicitly." In many of my answers, this will be important since in these instances various Christians have different interpretations.

I wouldn't say "disclose", I'd say "suggest".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here is another hard one (at least it took me for a good while):

In Christian theology, how do Christianity define "life" or "a life"?

For example, is an angel a life? Is a moth a life? Or is a tree a life? This question is significant. Because only after we defined life, then we know what is kill.

One injunction other than the thou-shalt-nots that is maintained from Noah to Abraham to Moses to the Jerusalem Church's instructions to Gentile churches is that we shall not eat animals with the life-blood still in it. (An injunction that biases some against steaks with any trace of pink.)

Plants are seen as alive also, however. I Corinthians 15:36, John 12:24.

I have no doubt that people living at the time would have identified angels as alive, even though they are spiritual beings. God is spirit and those that worship him, worship him in spirit. Nevertheless, "we serve a living god." I Thess 1:9, Acts 14:15.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have no doubt that people living at the time would have identified angels as alive, even though they are spiritual beings.

So, what is spirit? And what is soul?

 

[Tinker Grey]

How is Jesus the only begotten son of God if he's co-equal and eternal with God?

Since God is eternal and his nature is constant and his nature is trinitarian, then Jesus is co-equal and eternal with God simply because that is God's nature--"Jesus" being the earthly name we, in English, assign to the 2nd person of the Trinity.

As to being "begotten", this has been a hot-issue over the millenia as it implies a conflict with being eternal. How, after all, could a being be begotten if it always existed?

This issue is generally credited with being a key theological point that caused the Great Schism giving us the RCC and the EO division of churches. The original creeds said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only. Some western theologians inserted (apparently without consultation) the filioque meaning "and the son"; that is, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father "and the son".

So part of the answer is rooted in philosophical terms that are quibbles that make me wonder about the value of philosophy. In this case, the EO insist that the son, too, proceeds from the father. This would relate to be being begotten. Thus, the EO has a term that means something to them that maintains some concept of "begotten" though I confess it is beyond me. The RCC, OTOH, has lost that theological advantage. I don't know how they answer this question now. As the next paragraph might suggest, I'd guess that it has been addressed.

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity does attempt to answer the question with a metaphor. Imagine a book sitting on a table. That book depends on the table for its position in space. Now imagine that book has been on that table for eternity. IIRC, Lewis acknowledges that there are weaknesses with this image. If something like the above existed, could you not say that the table depends on the book for its position. Or rather, in some eternal type situation, how could determine where the dependence actually is.

Some groups of Christians maintain that these things are best left a mystery. In my words, these concepts have value in the same way a zen koan does.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I got to get some work done now.

I'll get back to this later.

Thanks for indulging me. Keep the questions coming.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

One injunction other than the thou-shalt-nots that is maintained from Noah to Abraham to Moses to the Jerusalem Church's instructions to Gentile churches is that we shall not eat animals with the life-blood still in it. (An injunction that biases some against steaks with any trace of pink.)

Plants are seen as alive also, however. I Corinthians 15:36, John 12:24.

But there is the first creation account. Genesis 1:28 - 1:31 implies that the green plants do apparently not have the breath of life. Every green plant is given as food to man, "to every beast of the earth", "to every bird of the air", "to everything that creeps on the earth", to -- I read this as a summation -- "everything that has the breath of life"

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, why do people believe in a loving God?

I'm not sure why you're saying this is off topic. I suppose it depends on how one takes the question. Maybe I'm the one misinterpreting what is being asked, but I might phrase it as:

Does faith have a cause?

Squeezing in another answer while at work:

Theologically speaking, we are created with a need for God. God has created with a desire for him, or at least a need for a god (refer to the Caananites pursuit of other gods).

One could say then that God causes the need for faith, and faith needs an object, with the intent that he will be that object.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What use is academic Bible knowledge if you have no faith?

Even if you've memorized every word of Scripture and know it forwards and backwards, it's all in vain if you do not have faith.

From a Christian perspective, none. From a practical perspective, at least I can converse with others from my culture.

 

[steve_bakr]

How is Jesus the only begotten son of God if he's co-equal and eternal with God?

Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. In that sense he is the Son of God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, what is spirit? And what is soul?

The idea of spirit derives from various words in the Hebrew associated with breath. It is that which animates us. There is a strong sense as scripture progresses that this a more mystical thing by which we commune with God.

Soul is a little harder. I tend to think of it as the core of who we are, the source of our "us-ness" if you will.

Luke 10:27 reads "He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

I sort of like reading this verse as "all your heart [comprising] soul, strength and mind." That is heart is a term meaning the totality of us, our emotions, our physicality, and our thoughts.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But there is the first creation account. Genesis 1:28 - 1:31 implies that the green plants do apparently not have the breath of life. Every green plant is given as food to man, "to every beast of the earth", "to every bird of the air", "to everything that creeps on the earth", to -- I read this as a summation -- "everything that has the breath of life"

We could say there is a contradiction here since I cited verses that say that plants are alive.

However, "everything that hath breath is alive" is not equivalent to "everything that does not breathe is dead".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

We could say there is a contradiction here since I cited verses that say that plants are alive.

However, "everything that hath breath is alive" is not equivalent to "everything that does not breathe is dead".

Where do you have the "hath" from?

And I don't think that there is some kind of authoritative stance within Christianity wrt what is alive and what is not anyway. Which brings me to another question. Is Pluto a planet or not?*









* j/k

 

[Tinker Grey]

Where do you have the "hath" from?

I grew up with the KVJ and still tend to think in KJV when quoting (accurately or not).

And I don't think that there is some kind of authoritative stance within Christianity wrt what is alive and what is not anyway.

Agreed. I was just trying to present what might be construed as a statement to that effect.

Which brings me to another question. Is Pluto a planet or not?*

Um ... only if Christian astrology is important to you.

 

[juvenissun]

One injunction other than the thou-shalt-nots that is maintained from Noah to Abraham to Moses to the Jerusalem Church's instructions to Gentile churches is that we shall not eat animals with the life-blood still in it. (An injunction that biases some against steaks with any trace of pink.)

Plants are seen as alive also, however. I Corinthians 15:36, John 12:24.

I have no doubt that people living at the time would have identified angels as alive, even though they are spiritual beings. God is spirit and those that worship him, worship him in spirit. Nevertheless, "we serve a living god." I Thess 1:9, Acts 14:15.

To this question, I would say you only get 60%. To say the least, there are a conflicts among your answers. And there will be harder followup questions based on your answer.

 

[juvenissun]

It is sometimes alleged that non-believers just don't understand Christianity.

So for as long as this thread remains open, I will answer questions on Christian Theology. I will do so with straight answers and no snark.

ETA: Questions are welcome both from believers and non-believers.

My third question has (at least) two levels. Level one is the apparent and level two is a natural followup to the answer of the first one. Nevertheless, I like to hear your first level answer to the question. If you like, you may briefly elaborate further.

There are some seemingly unreasonable descriptions in the Bible (such as Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, Joshua's long day, etc.) particularly in the Old Testament. These descriptions are mysterious, and are never supported by human knowledge. Yet, they are quite important descriptions that laid part of the foundation of the doctrine.

The Bible is a book selected, edited, and modified from many sources, by many people, and throughout an quite long period of time (at least a few hundreds of years). Why would those unreasonable, imaginary descriptions continuously be preserved and continuously be emphasized and firmly set into the fundamental Christian doctrine?

 

[Tinker Grey]

To this question, I would say you only get 60%. To say the least, there are a conflicts among your answers. And there will be harder followup questions based on your answer.

You'll to demonstrate that there is a conflict in my answer.

 

[ElijahW]

How does Jesus' sacrifice on the cross lead to the salvation of humanity or anyone?

 

[Tinker Grey]

My third question has (at least) two levels. Level one is the apparent and level two is a natural followup to the answer of the first one. Nevertheless, I like to hear your first level answer to the question. If you like, you may briefly elaborate further.

There are some seemingly unreasonable descriptions in the Bible (such as Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, Joshua's long day, etc.) particularly in the Old Testament. These descriptions are mysterious, and are never supported by human knowledge. Yet, they are quite important descriptions that laid part of the foundation of the doctrine.

The Bible is a book selected, edited, and modified from many sources, by many people, and throughout an quite long period of time (at least a few hundreds of years). Why would those unreasonable, imaginary descriptions continuously be preserved and continuously be emphasized and firmly set into the fundamental Christian doctrine?

N.B. I am answering these questions more toward general Christianity. It is worth noting that not all Christians take the stories that Juvenissun mentions as either mysterious or literal.

Answer: The Bible's primary value has never been as a text book and certainly not as a science book. It is the history of man's relationship with God as described by those either describing their relationship with God or the stories of others' relationships with God as they had been handed down.

The story of Adam for example is about obedience and conditions for fellowship.

Mythology in general (and I am not using that term pejoratively) is about a framework by which we interpret and explain our experiences.

These stories persist because they continue find traction with some as a useful rubric for understanding the world.