How do you define your Christianity ?

monosharp

After several months spent in this forum and replying to many threads, after discussing many aspects of Christianity and especially after reading the thread talking about the forums charter, I think I have come across something I didn't realise before.

Many people here view any question about any aspect of their religion as an attack on the religion as a whole. And I don't understand why.

For example on the extreme side you have the loveable JC in the creationism thread where acceptance of Evolution/geology/physics and most modern science would be akin to giving up Christianity because he views the Bible literally and anything which goes against that is automatically wrong.

Next we have the example of the new translation of the Hebrew bible in relation to the word 'creation'. I and others raised many questions in relation to this but it was basically dismissed as nonsense by the Christian posters. Now PDN and others made a good argument against it and they're probably correct but what was confusing was that they seemed uninterested in the possibility it was different then what they previously thought. I found this strange because regardless of the translation of the word it means very little/nothing to the Christian faith.

You also have other threads which question many different aspects of Christianity, important and not-so important. For example in another thread here some posters are questioning St Pauls attitude towards slavery. The Christian posters however are not debating this logically, they are using everything from "Jesus was on a spiritual mission so the physical world didn't matter ..." to "What Paul said wasn't what he meant".

Sorry for the long post and referral to other threads but I have a reason.

So heres my point. Is a question on any aspect of Christianity a question of Christianity itself ?

For example if Paul was a slave owning alcoholic, so what ? What difference does that make for your faith ?

This is something I have struggled with when I am discussing things with Christians.

So I have had many different discussions in this forum and I have gotten infractions for many different reasons that I previously didn't understand.

For example I cannot say anything bad about the god of the old testament because Christians view that as an attack on Christianity itself. Whereas I don't see the two as inseparable.

So what if the god of the old testament was 'less then pleasant', does that mean Christianity is wrong ? Is that an attack on Christianity itself ?

This is very interesting to me because I know many people who would consider themselves Christian but not believe most of whats in the bible. They don't particularly care if Jesus turned water into wine, or if Paul liked slavery or Noahs Ark happened etc.

All they care about is their faith in Jesus and God, i.e > They don't view the bible as literal or as 100% metaphorically correct.

So my question is, what parts of your religion can be questioned and which cannot ? Do you view a question about any particular aspect as a questioning of the entire faith itself ?

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Many people here view any question about any aspect of their religion as an attack on the religion as a whole. And I don't understand why.

I don't get your point. First of all, questions are not automatically taken as attacks. But, let's say you are attacking. If you say "Christian belief in an omnipotent God is unfounded" then you are attacking Christianity. An attack on one aspect of Christianity, IF it's a fundamental Christian belief (mere Christianity), OR if the Christian in question holds it as part of their Christian belief, is an attack on Christianity. This does not mean attacking the resurrection is taken as an attack on the doctrine of sanctification, but it's still an attack on Christianity. Of course no question is directed at every single aspect of Christianity, but that is not what is required to attack Christianity "as a whole" as you say.

Next we have the example of the new translation of the Hebrew bible in relation to the word 'creation'. I and others raised many questions in relation to this but it was basically dismissed as nonsense by the Christian posters. Now PDN and others made a good argument against it and they're probably correct but what was confusing was that they seemed uninterested in the possibility it was different then what they previously thought. I found this strange because regardless of the translation of the word it means very little/nothing to the Christian faith.

I would hardly call some woman deciding to translate a Hebrew word differently a "new translation of the Hebrew Bible." It is dismissed because it's nothing novel. It is nonsense because the rest of the Bible confirms how bogus it is.

You also have other threads which question many different aspects of Christianity, important and not-so important. For example in another thread here some posters are questioning St Pauls attitude towards slavery. The Christian posters however are not debating this logically, they are using everything from "Jesus was on a spiritual mission so the physical world didn't matter ..." to "What Paul said wasn't what he meant".

I don't get your point. Are you saying the discussion wasn't up to your standards? Perhaps they weren't arguing logically. What we can't do is speak for Paul himself and ask why he didn't advocate for the human rights we observe today. It's speculation. You will see different opinions offered, but in the end, we have to decide if the absence of an anti-slavery message is noteworthy or not. Slavery as mentioned in the Bible, is not the same slavery we think of today. It was perceived differently at the time, as well as actually being different, so we can't judge and know why wasn't it discouraged. This is a topic that is easy for atheists to attack, as there are plenty of opportunities to raise objections, and less opportunities to give an answer.

So heres my point. Is a question on any aspect of Christianity a question of Christianity itself ?

For example if Paul was a slave owning alcoholic, so what ? What difference does that make for your faith ?

For example I cannot say anything bad about the god of the old testament because Christians view that as an attack on Christianity itself. Whereas I don't see the two as inseparable.

So what if the god of the old testament was 'less then pleasant', does that mean Christianity is wrong ? Is that an attack on Christianity itself ?

When we discuss a specific Christian belief, certainly any conclusion drawn from that has potential to affect the whole of our beliefs. If we believe that Paul was a holy man of God, and provided a great deal of enlightenment regarding the nature of spiritual living, then certainly his lifestlyle has bearing on the matter. If we find that he does not live up to the standards we have for "holy men of God," then he becomes less qualified to teach us about God and Christian living.
If we believe the God of the OT is the same God in the NT, then certainly we have to defend Him against claims that He was "less than pleasant."
Yes, it does attack Christianity itself, if it's part of the foundation of our Christian belief.

This is very interesting to me because I know many people who would consider themselves Christian but not believe most of whats in the bible. They don't particularly care if Jesus turned water into wine, or if Paul liked slavery or Noahs Ark happened etc.

All they care about is their faith in Jesus and God, i.e > They don't view the bible as literal or as 100% metaphorically correct.

Some may claim these things, but everyone is different. I personally find it to be bad practice to base my faith on just a few scriptures of the Bible that mention love and Christ dying for me, and say the rest is just up in the air or doesn't matter.
Christians can have a much better understanding of the entire Bible than that, and shouldn't settle for such a weak foundation for their faith if they are able to learn more. The Bible tells us to study to show ourselves approved. I don't believe this is a metaphor or some fairy tale statment.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

An attack on one aspect of Christianity, IF it's a fundamental Christian belief (mere Christianity), OR if the Christian in question holds it as part of their Christian belief, is an attack on Christianity.

So by questioning JC's adherence to his belief in a 10,000 year old Earth is 'attacking' his Christianity ? But not everyones Christianity ?

If thats the case then how do you define the charter on this very forum. If what someone does is 'attacking christianity' to one christian but not to another, where do you draw the line ?

This does not mean attacking the resurrection is taken as an attack on the doctrine of sanctification, but it's still an attack on Christianity.

Why ? Why can't I be a Christian but not believe in the resurrection ? I have brought this issue up before, before Paulism there were Christians who had vastly different beliefs to yours today. Were they not Christian ?

Of course no question is directed at every single aspect of Christianity, but that is not what is required to attack Christianity "as a whole" as you say.

The way your defining it if I question people praying to Saints I am attacking Christianity because its a Catholic (Christian) belief.

You seem to believe that every single belief you hold now, every word of the bible now, is infallible and anything that questions any of it is an attack.

Is that right ?

I would hardly call some woman deciding to translate a Hebrew word differently a "new translation of the Hebrew Bible." It is dismissed because it's nothing novel. It is nonsense because the rest of the Bible confirms how bogus it is.

You must have missed the 'in relation to the word 'creation'' bit then.

The rest of the bible was written in a different language hundreds of years later. So I don't think its nonsense at all. The word in Genesis could very well mean 'seperate' not create and the words in the NT could very well mean 'create'. Thats not the point. The point is that people refuse to accept the possibility because they view any question of the status quo as an attack.

I don't get your point. Are you saying the discussion wasn't up to your standards? Perhaps they weren't arguing logically.

My point is why defend him so desperately when the evidence points a different way. Why is it so important to always be 100% right and infallible about your religion.

What we can't do is speak for Paul himself and ask why he didn't advocate for the human rights we observe today. It's speculation. You will see different opinions offered, but in the end, we have to decide if the absence of an anti-slavery message is noteworthy or not. Slavery as mentioned in the Bible, is not the same slavery we think of today. It was perceived differently at the time, as well as actually being different, so we can't judge and know why wasn't it discouraged. This is a topic that is easy for atheists to attack, as there are plenty of opportunities to raise objections, and less opportunities to give an answer.

I know and accept all this but its not my point and it wasn't my question.

My question was why couldn't you accept Paul being 'OK' with slavery. What difference does it make to your faith.

When we discuss a specific Christian belief, certainly any conclusion drawn from that has potential to affect the whole of our beliefs. If we believe that Paul was a holy man of God, and provided a great deal of enlightenment regarding the nature of spiritual living, then certainly his lifestlyle has bearing on the matter.

And if Paul was a madman who simply had the most popular following after the death of Jesus, what would that mean ?

If we find that he does not live up to the standards we have for "holy men of God," then he becomes less qualified to teach us about God and Christian living.

Why ? What makes his stance on slavery any bearing on his 'holiness' ?

If we believe the God of the OT is the same God in the NT, then certainly we have to defend Him against claims that He was "less than pleasant."
Yes, it does attack Christianity itself, if it's part of the foundation of our Christian belief.

But maybe the OT is wrong ? Maybe the people who wrote it wrote it incorrectly ? Maybe the translations were mucked up ?

Why can't I question something without it affecting everything ?

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

So by questioning JC's adherence to his belief in a 10,000 year old Earth is 'attacking' his Christianity ? But not everyones Christianity ?

If thats the case then how do you define the charter on this very forum. If what someone does is 'attacking christianity' to one christian but not to another, where do you draw the line ?



Why ? Why can't I be a Christian but not believe in the resurrection ? I have brought this issue up before, before Paulism there were Christians who had vastly different beliefs to yours today. Were they not Christian ?



The way your defining it if I question people praying to Saints I am attacking Christianity because its a Catholic (Christian) belief.

You seem to believe that every single belief you hold now, every word of the bible now, is infallible and anything that questions any of it is an attack.

Is that right ?



You must have missed the 'in relation to the word 'creation'' bit then.

The rest of the bible was written in a different language hundreds of years later. So I don't think its nonsense at all. The word in Genesis could very well mean 'seperate' not create and the words in the NT could very well mean 'create'. Thats not the point. The point is that people refuse to accept the possibility because they view any question of the status quo as an attack.



My point is why defend him so desperately when the evidence points a different way. Why is it so important to always be 100% right and infallible about your religion.



I know and accept all this but its not my point and it wasn't my question.

My question was why couldn't you accept Paul being 'OK' with slavery. What difference does it make to your faith.



And if Paul was a madman who simply had the most popular following after the death of Jesus, what would that mean ?



Why ? What makes his stance on slavery any bearing on his 'holiness' ?



But maybe the OT is wrong ? Maybe the people who wrote it wrote it incorrectly ? Maybe the translations were mucked up ?

Why can't I question something without it affecting everything ?

I can't be bothered to reanswer everything, but I think you misunderstood.
When you give an example of attacking Christianity, you are attacking the person's Christianity, not just some generic Christianity term. And this is always the case, because you are referring to discussing a matter with a Christian who holds Christian beliefs. Not everyone has the exact same set of beliefs, but there are a great majority who hold to at least a common set of them.

You might wonder how it is fair to say Christianity is all on the personal level, with each person having their own Christianity. This just cannot be avoided.
If you purposely try to attack Christianity by saying Jesus wasn't God, you will still have some who don't hold this belief, so while you intend to attack Christianity, you are just attacking the people who hold that particular form of Christianity.

Why can't you be a Christian but not believe in the resurrection? You just supported my above point. I actually thought the resurrection was the most central and defining doctrine of Christianity, but hey, maybe some "Christians" don't believe in it. By saying that every aspect of Christianity is optional, you could argue that you can never possibly attack Christianity "as a whole," but that would be a bit too convenient, don't you think?

Fact remains, there are some core beliefs that define Christianity. These beliefs are based on Biblical texts. The texts usually depend on other texts, and end up depending on the word of a particular figure at times. By attacking these figures, you end up attacking Christianity.
You may as well say that calling Jesus a liar is not attacking Christianity as a whole. I mean, what difference would it make? Maybe the OT is just plain false. It shouldn't make a difference, since we don't know if Jesus REALLY quoted from it. :rolleyes:

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So by questioning JC's adherence to his belief in a 10,000 year old Earth is 'attacking' his Christianity ? But not everyones Christianity ?

If thats the case then how do you define the charter on this very forum. If what someone does is 'attacking christianity' to one christian but not to another, where do you draw the line ?

The Charter tells you where you draw the line:

The Charter wrote:

2. For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. Individual posters with other beliefs, however, are welcome.

Incidentally, one can question a belief without attacking it. For example I might debate with a Catholic about their belief in papal infallibility, and it is perfectly in order for me to say that I don't agree with it. However, if I keep on and on trying to win an argument over it then that turns into an attack.

monosharp wrote:

Many people here view any question about any aspect of their religion as an attack on the religion as a whole. And I don't understand why.

I don't think that's true. Questions are fine. It is attacks that are creating the problem.

Next we have the example of the new translation of the Hebrew bible in relation to the word 'creation'. I and others raised many questions in relation to this but it was basically dismissed as nonsense by the Christian posters. Now PDN and others made a good argument against it and they're probably correct but what was confusing was that they seemed uninterested in the possibility it was different then what they previously thought. I found this strange because regardless of the translation of the word it means very little/nothing to the Christian faith.

It's untrue to say that we were uninterested in the possibility that the word could mean something different. I was interested enough to study that possibility 20 years ago in University.

The main problem that effectively prevented discussion on that thread was the untrue assertion in the OP that a different translation would suggest that God didn't create the earth (to be fair that did not originate with the OP but they had picked it up from an article obviously written by a journo with zero knowledge of the subject).

You also have other threads which question many different aspects of Christianity, important and not-so important. For example in another thread here some posters are questioning St Pauls attitude towards slavery. The Christian posters however are not debating this logically, they are using everything from "Jesus was on a spiritual mission so the physical world didn't matter ..." to "What Paul said wasn't what he meant".

No, what happened was that an atheist poster made the claim that Jesus endorsed slavery. That is untrue and it was pointed out to be such.

Jesus did come to fulfill a spiritual mission. He did not come to give a list of rules to regulate society. To point out this evident truth is hardly a case of "not debating this logically".

Also, what we said about Paul was that he did not endorse slavery. That is true. So it is a bit of a misrepresentation to claim that we said "what Paul said wasn't what he meant".

So heres my point. Is a question on any aspect of Christianity a question of Christianity itself ?

No questions are fine. What is not fine is when non-Christians come into the forum to attack a Christian position.

Let me give you an example, several non-Christians are currently engaging in a thread on the Trinity. They obviously don't believe in the Trinity themselves, but they are making a genuine attempt to understand what Christians believe and why.

But it all turns into nonsense if a poster decides they want to enter the same thread and tell Christians they are a bunch of irrational fools by arguing against the idea of the Trinity.

It gets worse when the same few posters invariably enter every thread and start arguing against the Christian position. For example, if we were to start a thread on say, polygamy, I could guarantee you one or two posters who would post on that thread arguing that the New Testament sanctions polygamy and why Christians are wrong not to say it is OK. And we would all know that they were not doing it because they genuinely hold an opinion on the subject. Instead they feel compelled to invariably argue against whatever they see the default Christian position as being. To be totally frank, we're all sick of it.

It would be like me going into the Manchester United forum and on whatever subject was under discussion (penalties, referees, the colour red, the Munich air disaster) to automatically argue for whatever we think will annoy the United supporters the most.

For example I cannot say anything bad about the god of the old testament because Christians view that as an attack on Christianity itself. Whereas I don't see the two as inseparable.

You might not see the two is inseparable, but Christianity does.

You cannot expect to slag off the Christian God in a Christian forum and escape without infractions. This is not A&A.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I don't think that's true. Questions are fine. It is attacks that are creating the problem.

I don't see many attacks here to be honest. Can you link one ?

The main problem that effectively prevented discussion on that thread was the untrue assertion in the OP that a different translation would suggest that God didn't create the earth (to be fair that did not originate with the OP but they had picked it up from an article obviously written by a journo with zero knowledge of the subject).

Well that was the interesting part wasn't it ? If God 'separated' the heaven from the Earth then it could mean that there was 'something' there before he started creating.

No, what happened was that an atheist poster made the claim that Jesus endorsed slavery. That is untrue and it was pointed out to be such.

I seen that but that wasn't what I was referring to. Of course that was incorrect.

Jesus did come to fulfill a spiritual mission. He did not come to give a list of rules to regulate society. To point out this evident truth is hardly a case of "not debating this logically".

But its not answering the question at all. I believe that response was in answer to Pauls comments on slavery and that answer was a complete sidetrack.

Also, what we said about Paul was that he did not endorse slavery. That is true. So it is a bit of a misrepresentation to claim that we said "what Paul said wasn't what he meant".

Paul said to slaves to serve their masters, he never condemned slavery and he once returned a freed slave to his master.

Thats pretty strong evidence that he was not opposed to slavery. But my point is that it was dismissed not because of any counter-evidence but because of belief.

You might not see the two is inseparable, but Christianity does.

Your definition of Christianity. You know better then I do that many Early christians seen the god of the OT as seperate from the god of the NT. The first christian 'heretic' for example was dubbed such for this very reason.

And this is exactly my point, I made it very clear in my posts that I was not talking about the god of the NT and that I considered them completely seperate but I was not allowed any leeway whatsoever in this regard.

Christians often complain that Catholics are indoctrinated but they are no different themselves. Theres a refusal to think that any part of the status quo may be incorrect.

You cannot expect to slag off the Christian God in a Christian forum and escape without infractions. This is not A&A.

I didn't slag it/him/her off, i showed my disgust at his actions and I made it clear I wasn't talking about Jesus or the god in the NT.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I don't see many attacks here to be honest. Can you link one ?

Those who attack have been getting and will continue to get infractions and bans. Their whining PMs are irritating enough without provoking the storm of complaint that would ensue by publicly naming them in this thread.

Also the job of the mods is to prevent such attacks, not to encourage a fest of backseat modding by posting each of them on here and asking everyone to chip in with their two cents worth.

Well that was the interesting part wasn't it ? If God 'separated' the heaven from the Earth then it could mean that there was 'something' there before he started creating.

Yes, and according to Christian belief the 'something' that was there before He started separating would have been earlier created by Him anyway. So the idea that a different translation would call into question His role as creator was a rather silly distraction.

But its not answering the question at all. I believe that response was in answer to Pauls comments on slavery and that answer was a complete sidetrack.

No it wasn't. It was in response to the claim that Jesus endorsed slavery, and then the subsequent backtracking of "Well, but Jesus didn't condemn it." That was where the point was made that Jesus did not come to condemn every sinful practice, but rather to fulfill a spiritual work of redemption by dying on the cross. That, in context, was a logical point to make.

Paul said to slaves to serve their masters, he never condemned slavery and he once returned a freed slave to his master.

Thats pretty strong evidence that he was not opposed to slavery. But my point is that it was dismissed not because of any counter-evidence but because of belief.

That is untrue, and its frustrating that you would attempt to start up the same debate here with the same misrepresentation.

The position I took in that thread was that Paul neither endorsed nor condemned slavery. He advised individuals how to behave who had to live under that system. That is the position that is supported by the evidence.

By the way, he did not return a freed slave to his master. He advised an escaped slave to return to his master - and anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of Roman history should appreciate the enormous difference between the two. But I'm not going to have another thread derailed into a slavery debate. If you want to initiate a thread that can ask about Christian attitudes to slavery in a respectful way and without breaking the Charter then you are free to do so. But I don't hold much hope of that seeing as you are already misrepresenting the position expressed in the other thread.

Your definition of Christianity. You know better then I do that many Early christians seen the god of the OT as seperate from the god of the NT. The first christian 'heretic' for example was dubbed such for this very reason.

No, not my definition, the Charter's definition. And in the context of this forum that's the definition you should be concerned with.

I didn't slag it/him/her off, i showed my disgust at his actions and I made it clear I wasn't talking about Jesus or the god in the NT.

That kind of hairsplitting won't save your ass when it comes to infraction time. According to the Charter the God of the OT is the God of the NT.

robindch

monosharp wrote: »

Many people here view any question about any aspect of their religion as an attack on the religion as a whole.

I think it would make an interesting question to put to a boards poll.

.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

After several months spent in this forum and replying to many threads, after discussing many aspects of Christianity and especially after reading the thread talking about the forums charter, I think I have come across something I didn't realise before.

Absolute nonsense. I know that many Christians welcome debate, but there is a difference between entering into a discussion with mutual respect and using the discussion as a means to air your grievances. I look back to your initial interactions on this form as a perfect example of the latter.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Yes, and according to Christian belief the 'something' that was there before He started separating would have been earlier created by Him anyway. So the idea that a different translation would call into question His role as creator was a rather silly distraction.

This is exactly my point.

I never inferred that what was there before he started creating the Earth etc was not created by him and I never called into question his role as a creator.

It was you who looked at it and it was you who assumed that was what I was trying to push. It was absolutely not.

I stated literally that 'It makes little/no difference to Christian belief'.

This is exactly what I am talking about, I was interested in the thread and what the possible consequences were but your the one who assumed I was attacking your belief system.

Actually it never even occurred to me that it would call into question his role as creator, the part that interested me was that most christians believe something today which may in fact not be 100% accurate according to the Bible. i.e > god magicked the earth into being in one instance or he previously magicked 'something else' into existence and then he molded it into the Earth and heaven.

Now regardless of whether or not this small issue was true or not, it would make absolutely no (or very minor) difference to Christian belief but you are so fundamentally opposed to any kind of changes to the status quo that you simply dismiss this and try to prove your point using a different book written hundreds of years later.

That is not academic, that is completely 100% belief based.

Simply put, the evidence for this change was academic (yes it was sketchy but it was academic) and the evidence you gave against it was faith based.

So I find it very difficult to question 'aspects' of christianity when christians here refuse to accept the possibility that any aspect of their belief system could possibly be wrong or misinterpreted because they view any questioning of any aspect as an attack on their faith as a whole.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say ? I'm sorry if I'm not been clear but I'm writing this in work.

That is untrue, and its frustrating that you would attempt to start up the same debate here with the same misrepresentation.

I'm not and apologise. I'll move to the other thread if I want to continue on this topic.

No, not my definition, the Charter's definition. And in the context of this forum that's the definition you should be concerned with.

Ok point taken.

But let me just ask you this, I am very interested in religion and christianity specifically. I am also very interested in the early church and the differing belief systems that have evolved over time.

Regardless of what you may think, I am not out to attack christianity but I do have deep questions of many aspects of christianity.

For example I am not a fan at all of Paulism and I'm also very interested in the early christian beliefs in Jerusalem. But when I have tried to question these before people outright rejected any historic and academic argument I had (regardless of its validity or not) and simply defended their position using faith.

I'm sure you remember these discussions with me.

So while you might have thought I was attacking christianity, in my mind I was most certainly not because regardless of Pauls contributions to the Bible, the basic message remains the same.

If Paul was proven tomorrow to be a complete fraud would that change your christianity ? I don't think so and I fail to see why such matters are not up for discussion.

That kind of hairsplitting won't save your ass when it comes to infraction time. According to the Charter the God of the OT is the God of the NT.

Many christians did not see it this way in the early church, a fact i'm sure your aware of.

And please also understand that I am not saying that god pre-jesus was an 'unpleasant fellow' but rather that the account of god written in the OT portrays him as an 'unpleasant fellow'.

Does the OT have to be 100% accurate for christian belief ?

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. I know that many Christians welcome debate, but there is a difference between entering into a discussion with mutual respect and using the discussion as a means to air your grievances.

I don't think the OT is accurate and I want to discuss this. I don't think the god of the OT is portrayed in a good light and I want to discuss this. I think the god of the OT is not the same (i.e > the book is wrong) as the god of the NT and I think he is a complete 'unpleasant fellow'.

Why are questions like these seen as an attack on Christianity ?

My point is that when any single, even insignificant, point of christianity or the bible is called into question. Christians defend it 'to the death' and I want to know why individual aspects that have little effect on the religion as a whole are so 'holy' that christians can't even consider the chance that they are wrong ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

This is exactly my point.

I never inferred that what was there before he started creating the Earth etc was not created by him and I never called into question his role as a creator.

This is getting tiresome. I have already pointed out to you that the OP, and indeed the very title of the thread, called into question God being the creator. Therefore that 'muddied the waters' when it came to discussing a Hebrew word.

Therefore I demonstrated that other Scripture verses still teach God to be the Creator. Once we had made that clear, I indicated that I was willing to have a discussion solely about the meaning of that Hebrew word. At that point the thread fizzled out, possibly because it became less exciting once the idea of saying 'God wasn't the Creator after all' was removed, or maybe because AFAIK none of the other participants in the thread actually read Hebrew.

It was you who looked at it and it was you who assumed that was what I was trying to push. It was absolutely not.

I responded in the context of the OP and the thread title. That's usually what happens on internet discussion boards.

This is exactly what I am talking about, I was interested in the thread and what the possible consequences were but your the one who assumed I was attacking your belief system.

I assumed that, since you were posting in that thread, you were posting in connection with the OP and the thread title.

Actually it never even occurred to me that it would call into question his role as creator, the part that interested me was that most christians believe something today which may in fact not be 100% accurate according to the Bible. i.e > god magicked the earth into being in one instance or he previously magicked 'something else' into existence and then he molded it into the Earth and heaven.

So you clicked on a link to a thread entitled New analysis of Hebrew bible suggests god did not create the earth, and where the OP said, "New textual analysis of the Hebrew in Genesis suggests God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself." And yet it never even occurred to you that it would call into question his role as creator?

Do you understand why I might have a problem believing you?

Now regardless of whether or not this small issue was true or not, it would make absolutely no (or very minor) difference to Christian belief but you are so fundamentally opposed to any kind of changes to the status quo that you simply dismiss this and try to prove your point using a different book written hundreds of years later.

Will you stop flogging a dead horse?

I already stated in that thread (post #22), and earlier in this thread (post #5), that I was responding to the assertion in the OP and the thread title that claimed to challenge a major Christian belief. Now what bit of that do you not understand?

But let me just ask you this, I am very interested in religion and christianity specifically. I am also very interested in the early church and the differing belief systems that have evolved over time.

Regardless of what you may think, I am not out to attack christianity but I do have deep questions of many aspects of christianity.

For example I am not a fan at all of Paulism and I'm also very interested in the early christian beliefs in Jerusalem. But when I have tried to question these before people outright rejected any historic and academic argument I had (regardless of its validity or not) and simply defended their position using faith.

I'm sure you remember these discussions with me.

I do remember them, but apparently I remember them very differently indeed.

I think you have a very selective memory if you think your points were all historic and academic while dismissing what anyone else said as being faith-based.

So while you might have thought I was attacking christianity, in my mind I was most certainly not because regardless of Pauls contributions to the Bible, the basic message remains the same.

No, it doesn't. Take Paul's writings out of the picture and the message could well be very different indeed.

If Paul was proven tomorrow to be a complete fraud would that change your christianity ? I don't think so and I fail to see why such matters are not up for discussion.

They are up for discussion if you can operate with a measure of good manners and under the terms of the Charter.

For example, it would be perfectly in order to start a thread asking, "If Paul's writings had not been included in the Bible then how would Christianity have developed?". Providing you don't start making trollish comments about Paul being a fraud that would be fine.

Or, if you have historic and academic evidence (real history, not a rant from some New Age conspiracy nut or The Davinci Code) that Paul was a fraud, then that could be a legitimate subject for discussion.

But if you just start posting that you don't like Paul, and therefore you think he was a fraud, then you will get a swift virtual kick up the virtual ass.

Many christians did not see it this way in the early church, a fact i'm sure your aware of.

If by 'early' you mean for the first 25 years, then they certainly did see it that way. All the early Christians were Jews. AFAIK there is no evidence during the first Century that anyone doubted that the God of the OT and the NT were one and the same. There was a much later heresy called Marcionism, but it came to nothing.

And please also understand that I am not saying that god pre-jesus was an 'unpleasant fellow' but rather that the account of god written in the OT portrays him as an 'unpleasant fellow'.

That is splitting hairs. The God of the OT is the Christian God. I suggest you stop trying to find a way round the Charter on this point.

Does the OT have to be 100% accurate for christian belief ?

No, but to argue that the OT is substantially wrong in its overall portrayal of God is to take the conversation beyond Christianity and into the Spirituality forum (if they even want it).

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

This is getting tiresome. I have already pointed out to you that the OP, and indeed the very title of the thread, called into question God being the creator. Therefore that 'muddied the waters' when it came to discussing a Hebrew word.

The OP and the title of the thread called into question the god of the old testament creating the earth, not being the creator.

Therefore I demonstrated that other Scripture verses still teach God to be the Creator.

Completely irrelevant to the content of the article, completely irrelevant to the majority of questions which were posted to you including mine.

Once we had made that clear, I indicated that I was willing to have a discussion solely about the meaning of that Hebrew word.

I think you need to re-read the thread because before your first post no one mentioned anything about god not being the creator. The only atheist response of substance before your original post was Malty and he didn't say anything about god not being the creator.

It was you who dived straight into scripture.

At that point the thread fizzled out, possibly because it became less exciting once the idea of saying 'God wasn't the Creator after all' was removed, or maybe because AFAIK none of the other participants in the thread actually read Hebrew.

No PDN, I have read until post #22 by you and until that time no one suggested anything about god not being the creator, the two main posters one of them being me, were entirely posting academic questions.

In my very first post on the thread PDN, I said and I quote;

monosharp from old thread wrote:

I'm also interested in why its important whether he created it or simply added to it/manipulated it once it was here.

I responded in the context of the OP and the thread title. That's usually what happens on internet discussion boards.

If thats the case then you responded in the context of the thread title to my posts which weren't in agreement with said title.

I assumed that, since you were posting in that thread, you were posting in connection with the OP and the thread title.

So you didn't read what I wrote ?

So you clicked on a link to a thread entitled New analysis of Hebrew bible suggests god did not create the earth, and where the OP said, "New textual analysis of the Hebrew in Genesis suggests God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself." And yet it never even occurred to you that it would call into question his role as creator?

I tend to read the articles and not make decisions based on the headlines, they're usually exaggerated nonsense to grab attention.

Do you understand why I might have a problem believing you?

So if I made a reply on a thread titled "why god doesn't exist" then your going to assume I am making an argument for gods non-existence ?

I already stated in that thread (post #22), and earlier in this thread (post #5), that I was responding to the assertion in the OP and the thread title that claimed to challenge a major Christian belief. Now what bit of that do you not understand?

You responded to an academic assertion of a possible linguistic issue in a 3000-ish year old book written in Hebrew by quoting from books written hundreds of years later by different people using a different language.

My point is simple, I didn't bring faith into it, I didn't attack your beliefs, I didn't even come to the conclusion you assumed I would and instead simply questioned the minor details. i.e > I questioned whether or not god had previously made 'something' and then shaped that 'something' to 'seperate' into heaven and earth.

And this happens regularly. I ask genuine questions and suddenly I'm 'attacking' peoples faith.

I think you have a very selective memory if you think your points were all historic and academic while dismissing what anyone else said as being faith-based.

Yet your the one arguing the translation cannot be 'separate' and must be 'create' because of your faith.

No, it doesn't. Take Paul's writings out of the picture and the message could well be very different indeed.

I beg to differ that the basic message would but thats OT.

No, but to argue that the OT is substantially wrong in its overall portrayal of God is to take the conversation beyond Christianity and into the Spirituality forum (if they even want it).

But my interest is in how belief in the OT has shaped Christian belief. Is it not then applicable here ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

The OP and the title of the thread called into question the god of the old testament creating the earth, not being the creator.

Oh for goodness sake. The belief that God is the Creator means that God created evertything. Everything includes the earth. Therefore if God did not create the earth then He did not create everything, and is not the Creator.

If you want to nitpick away at a previous debate then go and do it in that thread. If you feel you disagree with me over something then you will have to accept the fact we disagree. I'm not going to spend all day with you explaining why I said this or why I did that.

So if I made a reply on a thread titled "why god doesn't exist" then your going to assume I am making an argument for gods non-existence ?

No, but if you subsequently claim that the idea of God's existence 'never occurred to you' then I'm not going to believe you.

Yet your the one arguing the translation cannot be 'separate' and must be 'create' because of your faith.

Do you see what you doing here?

You made a claim that, in discussions about Paulism and the early Church in Jerusalem, you argued on historical and academic grounds and received only faith-based answers. I responded that was not my memory of those discussions at all. So you now respond by trying to demonstrate your point by referring to a thread that has nothing to do with Paulism or the Jerusalem Church, and where I have already explained that I was responding in the context of the thread title.

It's obvious that you are not asking genuine questions and are simply trying to find an argument. I have tried to be patient in answering your questions, but I'm not going to have a long debate with you about moderating policy.

Read the Charter. If you can live within it then we'll get along just fine. If you breach it then we won't.

But my interest is in how belief in the OT has shaped Christian belief. Is it not then applicable here ?

It is perfectly applicable to discuss how the OT has shaped Christian belief. It is not necessary to make provocative remarks about God in order to do that.

PDN

Btw, since this thread is not about how different Christians define their Christianity, but rather an attempt by the OP to rehash grievances from previous threads, I'm locking it.