Ask a Different Christian Philosopher a Question

[Percivale]

Recently someone posted a thread with a title similar to this one, so I thought I'd try it too and see if I can do a better job. I believe terse one line questions and answers are pretty much useless on an online forum; to really answer a question should take a paragraph stating what one's position is and is not, along with examples. Questions similarly should be detailed and clear. I call myself a philosopher mostly because I do a lot of thinking about philosophical questions, but also I am a grad student in Christian philosophy. I welcome your questions and will try to answer them well, though perhaps not quickly, since I am not online every day.

 

[com7fy8]

Which idea in philosophy has done you the most personal good?

And how have become wise to how you can keep yourself from benefitting from a good philosophical idea or attitude??

 

[David Colin Gould]

I will outline my understanding of the basic Christian idea. Then I will ask some questions about it.

All humans are imperfect.
Only perfect entities can enter true communion with God.
God wants us to be able to enter true communion with him.
Thus, he removes the imperfection through a two-step process:
1.) He takes the punishment for the imperfection upon himself;
2.) Then he each individual to believe all this and ask for forgiveness.

I guess my most basic question is: is my understanding flawed in any significant respect?
Then, assuming my understanding is generally okay, my second basic question is: what the rationale behind the two-step process that I outlined?

I ask this question because from my perspective the process seems illogical - indeed, it seems analogous to a non-sequitur. What is your understanding of it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

In what sense are you a philosopher?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[com7fy8]

I will outline my understanding of the basic Christian idea. Then I will ask some questions about it.

All humans are imperfect.
Only perfect entities can enter true communion with God.

As God's love cures our character, we grow in true communion with Him, like how an imperfect child grows in being able to share and relate with Mom and Dan who love the child so much. So we are like the imperfect child who can have communion while not perfect, but has more and more perfect communion while the child grows with Mommy and Daddy

God wants us to be able to enter true communion with him.

Correct; and He desires that we seek Him for the correction which He gives us, so we enter and grow and mature in His love making us in true communion with Him.

Thus, he removes the imperfection through a two-step process:
1.) He takes the punishment for the imperfection upon himself;

Jesus did die for our sins.

2.) Then he each individual to believe all this and ask for forgiveness.

I offer that what you say here is more talking about first being reconciled with God > Romans 5:10 < but then comes how "we shall be saved by His life." So, yes we trust in Jesus for all He did on Calvary and ask Him to forgive us and save us.

But then comes correction > Hebrews 12:4-11, and His love's perfection > 1 John 4:17 < how His love's life cures our nature so we become more and more loving like He is > "as He is, so are we in this world."

And with this we learn how to relate with God and please Him > Matthew 11:28-30 > 1 Peter 3:4 > Colossians 3:15 > plus we learn how to relate with one another > Ephesians 4:2, 4:31-5:2, and other scriptures. So, the perfection comes with growing as family with God our Father and one another who are learning how to submit to God and relate with one another while helping one another in this.

So, no one can get into this perfection of loving, except by sharing in family loving with God and His children helping one another with this. So, it is not an individualistic, independent thing. Independence, then, can be an idol.

I guess my most basic question is: is my understanding flawed in any significant respect?

My opinion is you have asked a question about Christian life, versus actual philosophy. So, I have offered some things the Bible says about becoming and loving as a Christian. Oh, and your understanding, I'm willing to consider, is not flawed but learning . . . like we all will need to keep on doing I think that what understanding you have offered shows some insight, and I think your offered explanation shows an effort to get some insight . . . even though you may not agree. You have understood how Christians believe that we humans are imperfect and therefore we need God, I think you have said.

Your understanding has gotten as far as "two steps" which are I would say actually the one step of becoming reconciled with God . . . so then we can get started in real the process of true perfection in God's love; and I have offered that there is more, which I have tried to summarize in a simple and maybe logical manner, with scriptures. In case I have >

Now we can go on to a philosophical question for Percivale >

If indeed God's main focus is to adopt sinners and change them into children who are pleasing to Him like His Son Jesus (Romans 8:29), and who share love with Him and one another as family, how does this effect your outlook on life in this world? Among other things, how does this effect, or should it effect, the priorities of our attention? And how much should we be concerned about suffering and fairness, versus investing attention in learning how to relate personally, as family? How does it effect your life's view of who should be getting our love (Matthew 5:46, 1 Timothy 2:1-4), and how much personal love each other human should be getting from us?

 

[durangodawood]

Are the answers in another thread?

 

[com7fy8]

Are the answers in another thread?

I welcome your questions and will try to answer them well, though perhaps not quickly, since I am not online every day.

While the cat's away, we have time to play

 

[GrimKingGrim]

How are thinking and actually committing the action of say lust considered the same thing in a Christian viewpoint?

 

[com7fy8]

How are thinking and actually committing the action of say lust considered the same thing in a Christian viewpoint?

In my personal philosophy, love does not have me use someone. So, if in my mind I use a woman, or if in action . . . either way, I am not loving her. I need to get into real loving, caring more for each woman I see and know. And, in practicality, while I am busy loving, I am not interested in using anyone for pleasure. Love does me so much more good

And I need to not look down on others who do not do as I do. So, this is a practical philosophy, for me.

 

[Albion]

How are thinking and actually committing the action of say lust considered the same thing in a Christian viewpoint?

They're considered equivalent to each other as wrongs. They are not considered to be the same.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

They're considered equivalent to each other as wrongs. They are not considered to be the same.

So if they were to be put to trial they should be treated as equally wrong? Why is that?

 

[Albion]

So if they were to be put to trial they should be treated as equally wrong? Why is that?

You can get the same sentence for being in the car when your companion shoots someone, you know.

If you don't want analogies for the answer, I'd say it this way:

The Biblical point about lust is that any sin is deserving of death. A small sin and a grievous sin. They're all sins according to Christian theology.

To appreciate how this "works" out, you have to also consider the Christian teaching about forgiveness. A good start might be the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

 

[durangodawood]

...A good start might be the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

The parable points to an advantage for being last. Less toil, and the promise of being first at pay time. Of course this refers to spiritual matters. But for such things, why is there this advantage to starting last?

 

[Albion]

The parable points to an advantage for being last. Less toil, and the promise of being first at pay time. Of course this refers to spiritual matters. But for such things, why is there this advantage to starting last?

Well, most people point to the fact that all the workers were given what they agreed to when hired, even though what they later thought was "fair" was arrived at solely through comparing their wages to other workers' wages. Likewise, we cannot say that our sins are greater or less than some other ones; they're all sins, and the wages of sin is death.

That may seem an inappropriate parable for illustrating what we've been talking about, but I wanted to say that it's a mistake to judge good and evil, sin and righteousness, and rewards and punishments, by ranking them.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, most people point to the fact that all the workers were given what they agreed to when hired, even though what they later thought was "fair" was arrived at solely through comparing their wages to other workers' wages. Likewise, we cannot say that our sins are greater or less than some other ones; they're all sins, and the wages of sin is death.

That may seem an inappropriate parable for illustrating what we've been talking about, but I wanted to say that it's a mistake to judge good and evil, sin and righteousness, and rewards and punishments, by ranking them.

But according to the parable, there's an actual advantage to starting work last, as you will later (when it really counts, presumably) be first. There's a switching of the order. Why is that?

 

[Received]

Why do Christian philosophers seem to ask so many people to ask them questions?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You can get the same sentence for being in the car when your companion shoots someone, you know.

Well if you can convince them that you're not an accessory maybe you could get some leeway but you're right. But this analogy is off because that requires two separate entities. One doing the crime, one just happened to just be there with unclear intent.

If you don't want analogies for the answer, I'd say it this way:

The Biblical point about lust is that any sin is deserving of death. A small sin and a grievous sin. They're all sins according to Christian theology.

To appreciate how this "works" out, you have to also consider the Christian teaching about forgiveness. A good start might be the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Yea and that is where your system is fatally flawed. A system where all crime is even and is easily forgiven. It makes the severity of crime meaningless and the consequences negligible. This is why Christian theocracy failed and why secularism rules nations.

Another question. Do you actually agree with this system? You as a person, separate from the religion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can get the same sentence for being in the car when your companion shoots someone, you know.

If you don't want analogies for the answer, I'd say it this way:

The Biblical point about lust is that any sin is deserving of death. A small sin and a grievous sin. They're all sins according to Christian theology.

To appreciate how this "works" out, you have to also consider the Christian teaching about forgiveness. A good start might be the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

So to put it simply...christian morality/justice is draconian?

 

[Albion]

But according to the parable, there's an actual advantage to starting work last

Well, yes, and that's the way most of us would see immediately it, but the point of the parable concerns those who were hired first, later complained, and what the employer told them in response.

 

[Albion]

Well if you can convince them that you're not an accessory maybe you could get some leeway but you're right. But this analogy is off because that requires two separate entities. One doing the crime, one just happened to just be there with unclear intent.

Might be like committing a lesser sin, then, wouldn't it? And the other person would be guilty of murder.

Yea and that is where your system is fatally flawed. A system where all crime is even and is easily forgiven. It makes the severity of crime meaningless and the consequences negligible. This is why Christian theocracy failed and why secularism rules nations.

Well, if that's your view of the matter..."thanks for sharing."