The Upper Room - 2011-10-04 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (41 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4585 days later) »

7:39 AM

Hey @jchaffee, welcome to Christianity.SE. We're glad to have you around and it seems like you have some valuable things to contribute, but can I recommend you drop in our chat sometime and see if any of the more experienced StackExchanger's are around? I know it's a lot of ropes at first and not what people expect, but I'm some of the old hands could talk you through how to turn hit-or-miss answers into solid ones.

I don't want you discouraged because some of your answers have gotten beaten up on, if you are willing to work on some of the content and conforming to the modus-operendi on SE I think you'll do fine.

2 hours later…

9:39 AM

@caleb, how can a perfect being need something from imperfect beings?

10:13 AM

@BeatMe I covered that briefly at the top of this answer:

7

A: Does God need our praise and glory?

There is a sense in which an attribute which is an action is not fully realized until it is enacted. Love isn't real without an object of affection. Forgiveness is ethereal until somebody has crossed you. Being a redeemer requires something to save. I would not go so far as to say there was an i...

10:27 AM

yes, thats why I asked you

God had need of recognition

but some being who is perfect, surely don't has need of something

why do you think otherwise

I don't. I said I would NOT go so far as to say that he needs something. He demands it, it makes his already perfect glory realized, but he doesn't have some inherent unmet want or need.

Because he is perfect, quite frankly there is no possibility of any other being existing that COULD somehow add to him in some way, which is also why I think angels are not actually perfect in the way that most people assume them to be.

That's actually why I asked this but so far nobody has even hinted at what I believe the answer to be:

6

Q: Can angels be saved?

We know from the Bible that devils are fallen angels, once created good but who chose to join Lucifer's rebel uprising and consequently lost their place in heaven. Can those angels ever be saved? Can the angels that remain choose to change sides? Is there such a thing as salvation for an angel?

salvation angels

I've upvoted two of the answers as being good, but if you ask me there is is an important piece missing there.

2 hours later…

12:37 PM

Ummm... In this question:

1

Q: What are the main contradictions between the teachings of Mormonism and the Bible?

What are the main contradictions between the teachings of Mormonism and the Bible? I mean, there are a lot of points in Mormons' teaching, which are new to the Bible, so to say, but can't be proved or disproved. What I am about here, though, is some points of their teaching that seem to come in...

Is there something I'm missing or did Ray only say "VTC" but didn't actually "vote to close"?

@Richard lol I think he may have forgotten to click the button. I'm inclined to just close it

Yeah, me too.

would love a community close vote or two...

hint hint

@Richard Ping him about it.

Huh.. Yeah...

Closed... sorry.

12:39 PM

I was thinking of closing it myself but decided to let the community have at it. I edited it to be less onerious but it still was sketchy.

Throwing a comment on there now...

@Richard no problemo needed nuking

El'endia Starman

Woah, snap. FOUR of us online at the same time? :P

Nice!

@waxeagle I see he rolled back my edit ... and then left a comment to somebody else that they could help with less offensive wording?

12:43 PM

@Caleb yeah that doesn't work. we will see if it improves through the day (though the kind of question is not exactly welcome here)

Ping @Richard and @peterturner re this answer. Was this from a Catechism or some other reference document or just a quip? If the former it could be made into a reasonable answer pretty easily.

@Caleb thats peter's profile

Do you mean this one:

3

A: Is the stigmata biblically sound?

Stigmata is a grace given to a follower of Christ₁, meaning Stigmata is not public revelation, nor could it be. So it's not biblical in the way the 7 Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Holy Orders, Last Rites and Confirmation) are. These private revelations often come ...

@Richard No. Fixed my link, sorry about the copy/paste screw up.

Aah.

Yeah, that's 90% of my screw ups

@Caleb Yeah, I agree. It does have a good chance to be turned into a good answer. I should've said something about deleting being a temporary state for him to have a chance to fix his answer.

Hmm...

Yeah, he did add another line after I deleted it. It's just not quite there yet. (Even if that were a quote from a source, it'd be better.)

12:53 PM

@Richard I actually don't agree with your comment on that LDS question. If you follow that a little farther you could conclude that any question that reveals the differences between Protestants and Catholics is not welcome on the site. We have hundreds. And we all know we have differences. The question is not whether a question calls out differences between different "Christian" beliefs but whether it does so in a respectful rather manner.

@Caleb Yeah, that's a good point. Still, I think divisive questions shouldn't be allowed. I think you're right that it's the tone that sets it apart.

I think that question could easily be made into something about what doctrines LDS develops from their other sources (D&C, PoGP) that can't be made from the Biblical canon and still be a welcome question. It's not what is being asked in this case, it's how its' being asked. And I agree the original wording doesn't cut it.

Yeah, I agree. It's not necessarily the "line of questioning" that I mention, but the tone. I'll see if I can change my comment to reflect that.

Hmmm.... that's better, but not quite right.

Incidentally I disagree with @MasonWheeler on this too -- the site isn't primarily to "promote unity" and not everything that points out the differences between different sects needs to be off topic. We're not limited to answering based on the subset of things that are true across-traditions.

@Richard It's better now.

1:02 PM

However talking about the differences has to be done in a way that's respectful and not name-calling and realizing the scope of the site is out any of our definitions of Christianity but a secular meta-definition of self-professing....

@Caleb I totally agree with this.

Note the line Robert highlighted in my meta post here: "If you are more inclined to resent rather than celebrate the differences between us, then this may not be the site for you."

Celebrating differences in so far as they are examined, understood, and respected can't be done if specifically asking about differences is off-topic.

... OK, I'm staying out of this one.

Is this martial arts question a duplicate of the yoga question? 90% of my answer would fit, it seems like cheating to copy/paste/tweak it.

@Richard I'm tempted to close both those questions :) I wish we had some community VTC's on them.

@Caleb Would you like me to edit my yoga question? It seems like all the answers would be duplicated.

afk

1:07 PM

@Richard Actually there are some potential differences between yoga and martial arts even in my wordview that lumps them together. It might be worth editing to make them MORE different rather than to be more similar/duplicate.

El'endia Starman

I'm just gonna toss in a quick comment here and say that I've done Tae Kwon Do for 11 years...and Tae Kwon Do is technically an Eastern martial art (Korean). I don't really recall there ever being a spiritual component.

@ElendiaStarman That's why there is a difference because there is a scale from "hand in glove" to "no relation" between eastern physical arts and spirituality. I think yoga is near over half way to the left end of that, but some of the martial arts are closer to the right.

El'endia Starman

[nods]

So if someone posts an awesome answer that makes my answer look silly, should I just delete my answer?

@a_hardin depends, does your answer add any value at all?

1:20 PM

@waxeagle I guess. Hopefully the votes will just work and bury my answer at the bottom of the page. :)

@a_hardin well if it gets to +3/-3 you can delete it an get a badge!

@a_hardin Are you somebodies TL;DR?

@Richard I talked to the folks in EL&U chat and edited/migrated both questions over there.

@Caleb No, they have a different and correct answer

It was that @Richard guy

1

A: What is joy? How is it different from happiness (or is it)?

"Joy" is not an ideal translation of the original Greek here because it doesn't quite cover the original meaning. A better translation would be "rejoice" or "rejoicefullness" (if that were a word). Let's take a look... Greek The Greek word used in these passages is chara (also transliterated ...

@waggers In the future please refrain from posting questions that you know don't belong on the site just to make a point. It just makes more work for us the mods to get it all cleaned up. You VTC'ed one question and then asked the same kind of question yourself, that's kind of abusing the system. Next time just ask on the site where you think it belongs and link back to show that it's a good thing there.

1:41 PM

I have an idea we're not done with this definition-of-Christianity thing yet. We may need something in our FAQ to counteract stuff like this. Using the definition used to scope the site as an argument against the real thing should be specifically addressed as a non-sequitor argument.

@Caleb This will be the hardest ongoing struggle for this site. It will probably be the hardest thing for new users to get a handle on.

However putting it into the FAQ gives us a canonical place to point to when there are questions and discussions about it.

@waxeagle Exactly. Which is why we need it in the FAQ. How to word it as a canonical reference I don't know off the top of my head.

@Caleb To Meta!

@Caleb lolz

Wow, this answer doesn't go over very well with non Christians. I have an idea that this idea is one of the core things that our flesh rebels against. The first thing pride does is tell us this can't be true or good.

@Caleb I had an intriguing conversation with them

yesterday

basically a belief in the basic goodness of humanity and the idea of God's omnibenevolence really cloud things up for them

(btw omnibenevolence is a term I truly have come to despise)

1:56 PM

@Caleb The migration is cool with me. Knowing the answer is non-biblical, I believe it belongs there, too. If the answer were scripture, I think it would belong here. But, I don't mind EL&U rep. ;)

@waxeagle Link?

@waxeagle Omni-what? Is that Biblical?

Discussion of how a perfect God still…

Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...

@Caleb omnibenevolence I don't think it is, but its a feature of God oft cited by atheists

@waxeagle Yes, that's true for vast numbers of people.

Omnibenevolence

Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning "all", and benevolent, meaning "good") is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite ". It is often held to be impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such property along side omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence. The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such. ...

apparently

> The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity;

@waxeagle I was just going to quote that. I don't think the Psalms citation they give demonstrates it at all.

Is this even true?

> Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute

2:00 PM

> Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",[5] or simply the term "benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood

this tells me it actually is meaningless

@Caleb I'm not certain.

El'endia Starman

Well, gotta head to class! Seeya guys!

@ElendiaStarman ciao

@Caleb it looks like a pretty recent term (1679) and a lot of primary usage has been by the atheist/philosopher community. Although the Plantinga reference is perhaps the most problematic

@waxeagle Great. So we have a basically meaningless term being trumpeted on Wikipedia as the foundational understanding of the nature of God?

@Caleb yup

Brilliant. <sarcasm alert>

I feel a question coming on.

2:06 PM

@Caleb excellent. I had not encountered the term until I got here, and I haven't seen anyone but our atheist friends actually using it

@waxeagle See here: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/1500/…

@Caleb Oh Boy!

@waxeagle <deep breath> :)

Can we merge this question:

0

Q: What are the main points of Mormons' teaching that this group of people (see the question) consider contradictory to the Bible?

Okay, before asking this question I want to establish the audience that I am about to address: people who consider themselves Christians and don't associate themselves with Mormons. So here is the question: What are the main points of Mormons' teaching that majority of those who consider themse...

2:21 PM

0

Q: How do Wesleyan theologians define omnibenevolence?

Reading the Wikipedia article on omnibenevolence it is entirely unclear to me what the term means and how it relates to the God of Christianity. I quote: The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, dependi...

nature-of-god wesley omnibenevolence

@Richard Which direction? To make the new link to the old closed one or vise versa?

@Caleb Either way. (Although I hadn't considered merging the old to the new.) They are just two identical questions from the same person.

(Clearly the first simply needed edited.)

@Richard if the wording of the new is better just merge to the new

@Richard I'll take care of it.

Merge doesn't do that but some copy/paste editing and a merge will :)

@Caleb Thanks.

@waxeagle It's very often used for formulating the theodicy, that's where I know it from. Just using benevolent would likely be enough, in that specific case it just allows you to shorten the whole stuff to omnimax god, which is less to write ;-)

2:32 PM

right, but my point is the following
1. Its ambiguous, benevolences means several different things,
2. Depending on the meanings it doesn't reflect a biblical understanding of God
3. Based on the number of definitions it really shouldn't be defined as foundational to Christianity

@Richard Done, but I don't think this wording can be re-opened yet. Anybody that wants to pitch in to help him can, I don't think he understood what I tried to write.

@waxeagle My understanding was always that god is good (= not evil), and benevolent seems to be a pretty good word for that. Which meanings of benevolent would not apply to the christian god?

@Fabian yes, the problem is the confusion with what Good actually means.

perfectly good when interacting with a corrupt creation becomes a very interesting concept.

@waxeagle I find it pretty intuitive to just use the ethical standards we apply to other humans, in the more extreme cases even atheists and christians usually can agree on some standards.

@Fabian right, the issue I see is the assumption of innocence of humanity. The assumption of guilt of humanity is where Christians and Atheists are going to differ

2:44 PM

@waxeagle The biggest problem I have there is the absolute lack of proportionality of response from god, at least according to the common explanations for sin, hell and so on from evangelical christians.

That is just contrary to any civilized system of justics we have here on Earth

@Fabian could you define this a bit better? I don't think I quite understand what you are saying here

@Fabian That's sort of a practical short-cut becuase Christians believe that real standards are imprinted by God on men so whether men acknowledge the author of those standards or not they are often there to work with, but you can't keep running with that argument because you don't have a common absolute to reference when things go wrong.

Correct me if I understand it wrong, but a common christian position that it is perfectly fine for god to torment someone for eternity in hell for any infraction, no matter how small (all sins are equal). All civilized courts punish according to the severity of the crime.

@Fabian i see. What if everyone was guilty of murder?

@Fabian I would say that's most likely the fault of inadequate definitions of sin. The popular ones don't do the idea justice.

2:49 PM

@waxeagle But most people never murder anyone

@Fabian sure, but what if everyone was guilty of murder?

@Fabian You can't take "all sins are equal" to mean "all sins are small". The problem with sin is it is infraction and a state of rebellion against an infinite God. That means all sins are infinitely big.

@waxeagle Still, eternal punishment would likely be seen as "cruel and unusual"

@Fabian sure, but can you conceive of something worse than murder?

can you conceive of a crime that is deserving of eternal punishment?

@waxeagle Nothing that would justify eternal punishment

2:51 PM

@waxeagle making someone burn in hell for eternity?

@CiscoIPPhone lol.

my point being. if you can conceive of the worst crime you can commit. magnify this by a power of infinity and that to God is what everyone is guilty of, from the moment they are conceived.

this is what total depravity means

@waxeagle That is pretty arbitrary, and probably the source of the disagreement

@Fabian not arbitrary, its the imputation of Adam's guilt onto humanity

@waxeagle I see no justification for punishing someone for something he has not done

@Fabian lol do you have to pay taxes when your representative votes to raise them?

2:56 PM

@waxeagle Taxes are not punishment, I don't think this analogy works

todays kids don't get sentenced to death if their father is, do you think it would be justified otherwise?

Do you think killing the family of a convicted criminal as punishment would be fair?

@Fabian hmmm lets try another one. ooh here is a good one. if your country decides to go to war, who makes that call?

that is a equally bad one

@BeatMe ? do you know where I'm going?

2:58 PM

@waxeagle The elected representatives in parliament, but war is also not really about ethics

@Fabian your country is then nuked by the opposition, you are then paying for the poor decisions of your leaders are you not?

how is that fair?

it's not

and it is not justified

@waxeagle It is not fair, it happens, but you wouldn't make nuking whole countries the base of a system of morality

@Fabian right but my point, and this is the larger point here, you are responsible in the end for what your representatives have done are you not?

How about this one @waxeagle and @Fabian. The issue is representation. Let's say you were born the citizen of one country. Your country has established borders with neighboring countries. One of those neighboring countries has specific laws about imigration and you have to get a specific visa to go there. The law about that was made by politics you had no control over and the border was set before your birth.

Yet you are still subject to it because it was made by people who went before you and who represented all future citizens of those countries.

3:01 PM

so i am responsible for the death of jews in my country because my ancestors were the nazis?

your're kidding right?

@waxeagle That analogy doesn't work as I vote in elections, I didn't vote for Adam

@Fabian how do you know?

Adam was YOUR representative. You inherit his nature and citizenship.

So, you think punishing people for crimes of their ancestors would be fair?

@Fabian not by human standards, no

3:04 PM

oh that again

god did it, then it surely is ok

I'll have to go for now, bye

@BeatMe not my point. Also an ancestor is not necessarily a representative.

so adam did not necessarily represent us?

In this case Adam was a representative, my dad's grandfather was not my representative in any tangible way

@BeatMe no he definitely was.

i don't think he represented me, but apparently I can't choose?

3:09 PM

@BeatMe do you think you can do better?

do what better?

not pushing eternal sin to my kids/representatives

@BeatMe do you think that you could have lived in the garden of eden and not eaten the fruit of the knowledge of good an evil?

yeah, i think i can handle that

no, not that

i think i would be more like satan

because i actually think he's the better guy

but i know you disagree with me, so just forget it ;)

3:23 PM

btw I don't get it why god would place a forbidden fruit anywhere, place humans in there who of couse could get decieved by satan/the snake and eat the fruit (how horrible), while knowing this would happen and then not only punish adam, but also everyone else

at least we got free will not to believe in him, thanks

@BeatMe see the answer to my question on the subject

morning

@caleb Will do, sorry for not bringing it here first. I'm still confused as to why one question was moved and the other wasn't though

@Waggers ? they were both moved

@waxeagle Ah thanks, didn't spot that the first one was moved too

3:38 PM

@Waggers no sweat

I think what confused me was that the first question was posted by a moderator (who presumably knows where questions of that type are meant to go)

@Waggers you'd think so :), but when the definitions are fuzzy its tough for even us to know...

3:52 PM

We moderators are also part of the community and we're trying to figure all this out together. In Richard's defense his question was a little less obvious because than yours because of the reference material on the subject (if you searched the question title for example) being less explicit. However the guys at EL&U said they would take them both and Richard agreed, so we're tried that route.

True. I didn't realize it wasn't of biblical origins until I saw the answer. Once I knew the answer, I realized that it definitely belonged over at EL&U, not here. If there was some scripture about it, then it belonged here. Being non-biblical made it belong over there. (It's confusing when you don't know the answer.)

...which is why migration exists in the first place.

It reminds me of other questions that I wanted to close for being too broad, but since I didn't know what the answer would be, I was forced to leave them open. ;)

I think a question could potentially be asked about either of those questions about whether the CONCEPTS bear any merit in relation to Christianity, but as etymology questions they don't make much sense here.

4:22 PM

If a question is deleted, does it drop your rep retro-actively/historically?

Yes, on the next rep-recalc it will get excluded.

You can force a recalc from /reputation or wait a couple days and it will happen automatically.

Huh. That explains why I keep losing mortarboards.

I guess I need to be more picky about which questions I answer!

Yes, if the question is destined for the trash pile the rush to "get in before the close" is kind of pointless.

Have you followed the brew-ha-ha on Prog.SE? The scope of the site and allowable questions kind of changed and they (mostly @MarkTrapp I gather) have been doing crazy cleanup/closing/deleting old questions. I guess a few people are taking some pretty serious rep hits along the way.

user2334

@Caleb I may be the most vocal, but we do have a posse and the other moderators are part of the cleanup

user2334

I know I've lost a couple hundred rep; I believe Chris and Anna have lost several hundred

user2334

4:29 PM

Otherwise, most people don't manually recalculate their rep and don't give anyone any reason to recalculate their rep (like getting suspended), so they still have their hundreds to thousands of rep from the thousands of questions we've deleted

user2334

At one point I ballparked it for the highest rep users on Programmers, and it was about 1000-2000 rep lost on average. A drop in the bucket for our top users, who are all well above 10k

@MarkTrapp Yeah, that would stink, but it wouldn't be horrible.

user2334

Yeah, I guess if you care about the the number always going up. But very few people, if any, would lose privileges if there was a global recalc tomorrow

It looks like Biblical Hermeneutics has hit 100% commitment. I'm curious to see what happens once it goes online...

@Richard In any case the 40 of yours you just self-nuked isn't going to break the bank or drop you any privs :)

user2334

4:35 PM

@Richard I'm interested to see if it even makes it out of private beta

user2334

They've been stricter with that as of late

user2334

If Biblical Hermeneutics can't come up with a question that's not on-topic for Christianity...

@MarkTrapp lol, I don't think there is one

Old testament stuff would work. But I question if the overlap wouldn't be allowed.

user2334

@waxeagle I don't either. Most questions on Christianity since public beta opened have been asking for Biblical interpretations

4:37 PM

Since C.SE is in beta still, I can see there being overlap. And I've seen many questions that deserve hermeneutic treatment not get what they deserve.

Also, there's overlap on other sites (literature / SFF) (DIY/Gardening) etc.

@MarkTrapp I can think of quite a few things I'd rather as to a bunch of hermeneutics experts that I haven't bothered here. We COULD accommodate it by making those off topic here.

@Richard That's exactly the part that bothers me. If they get some expert attention they might (rightfully) best us. But then if we could get those guys over here. I don't know what to push for myself.

...seems like we're rehashing TL topics...

I look at DBA.SE and see that they had a choice in the beginning to be either "Databases" or the more specific "Database Administrators". They chose the latter. I think targeting the expert is a much better format for an SE site rather than targeting the questioners.

user2334

Splitting SE sites by expertise rarely works unless the audience strictly enforces that because they all belong to the same academic group; like Math Overflow or CSTheory.SE

user2334

@Richard They actually chose the former. They've been trying to get their name changed since early beta. SE imposed DBA just before the site launched

@MarkTrapp Really? Huh. It seems better suited to DBA.

I'm on SE's side there, then.

user2334

4:45 PM

20

Q: Why Database Administrators?

When I comited to this site, the title was Database. It suddenly became Database Administrators, why that ? Talking about database is not only the administration side it's all the task around also. Data modeling, SQL problems, Database decision, etc... I just would like to know why did the na...

user2334

Not the same type of problem Biblical Hermeneutics faces: only hermeneutics would be on-topic there

user2334

The argument is something like changing Christianity to Christian Theologians

@MarkTrapp True. And I think the site could benefit from that...

user2334

I tend to agree, but I don't think that would fly very well with the site's current core audience

5:21 PM

0

Q: Does any Protestant doctrine vindicate old heresies?

I can't say that I exactly know what I mean by 'Protestant Doctrine' so please excuse the expression. What I mean to say is, are there any old the old heresies (i.e. Manichean, Arian, Nestorian, Iconoclasm) which have ideas which have been resurrected and repackaged by main-line denominations -...

protestantism heresies

Is this a list question?

(or is it just me)

user2334

@Richard It's a list question, but doesn't seem to be materially different than every question asking how Christians deal with X issue.

user2334

Could be reworded to "How do Protestants deal with pre-Reformation heresies?"

Good point. Maybe it's just broad. (What are all the denominations that believe in pre-Reformation herisies and which do they believe?) Yikes!

That would be the "complete" answer.

Meh. I'll leave it. Heck, I'll even try to answer it if I have time.

@Richard Or maybe I should hold off...

5:40 PM

@Caleb currently looking at Richards' answer trying to figure out if I can squeeze it in there somewhere

or maybe a seperate question. "Lots of people have died, some of them rather unjustly, why was Christ's death unique, why was it sufficient as payment for our sins?"

@richard Poke.

user2334

@Richard I dunno, I don't see how that's different from, or more broad than, the questions that ask "Are Christians allowed to practice martial arts?", "Must a Christian accept the Bible as inerrant?", or "Can you be Christian while wishing death on another?"

user2334

All of these questions are just code for "Interpret the Bible to support or defend X thesis" anyway, which is what the old Heresies question is going to turn into

Actually, I found a list of old heresies (conveniently) and Wikipedia seems to help determine if any are still in use. The list isn't as long as I anticipated.

@waxeagle I might just do that...

5:55 PM

@Caleb ooh let me, I'm sorely in need of questions :)

Go for it. So far: Why was Christ's death different than any other martyr's?

Throughout history many people have been put to death on account of the ideas that they stood for. Many of these were unjust executions in the same way that Jesus mock trial and execution at the instigation of the Jews and the hands of the Romans was unjust.

What made Christ's death unique to accomplish something that

15

Q: How is Christ's death so significant?

(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory) This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment: ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is ...

jesus crucifixion

noticed this one in the similar Q dialogue, is this Q sufficietnly different?

I think it is

@waxeagle Depends on what you were going to try to ask. I was headed down pretty much that direction (which I see I've already answerd, huh...not remembering that).

@MarkTrapp I see what you mean. Many of the questions are very broad. That one seemed particularly broad to me at the time. Like many things, though, once I see an answer (or know an answer), it doesn't seem so bad.

@Caleb lol also how do we not have a soteriology tag

6:01 PM

@Richard That makes me think back to this topic earlier.

@waxeagle We don't have many people asking questions that would know what that means.

Throughout history many people have been put to death on account of the ideas that they stood for. Many of these were unjust executions in the same way that Jesus' mock trial and execution at the instigation of the Jews and the hands of the Romans was unjust.

What made Christ's death unique to accomplish something that the death of another martyr could not?

Corollary (could be broken out into a second question if needed): Why is Christ's death sufficient for salvation?

@Caleb sadly true

And we havn't done much tag cleanup.

@Caleb very true, we should probably get on that

← 17 messages moved from Discussion between Atheist and Caleb

@waxeagle What's the angle that is going to make answers different from Marc's question?

6:05 PM

@Caleb trying to find it now...need another 'graph or two...

It's kind of different but it seems the core of the matter is still pretty close. More deviation between them would be a good thing.

@Caleb yup

14

Q: What was it about the death of Jesus that allows God to forgive us?

I've heard many people state that it was the punishment inflicted by the Romans that allows God to forgive us. This just doesn't make any sense to me. How can a man suffer for a short while here on earth in order that a divine being have the right to forgive sin?

sin forgiveness crucifixion

this one too covers the same ground I'm trying to get to...

@waxeagle Good grief, for having answers on these I sure don't have much memory of the questions.

@Caleb they were posted nearly a month ago and over a month ago respectively

@waxeagle And I have a head cold and am generally confused. This evening at dinner I wanted the salt, asked if the water could be passed, and pointed towards the bottle of coke.

3

6:15 PM

@Caleb wow, you should go to bed.

Wow, yeah. Go and Rest!

@Caleb is still dominating the stared comments.

@TRiG on the site or in chat?

@waxeagle Are there starred comments on the site?

@TRiG good point...

hangs head in shame

I was thinking upvoted...

6:24 PM

@waxeagle giggle

@TRiG totally depraved I tell you, totally depraved

@waxeagle I'm just amazed that there's two of mine in the sidebar. I take it that's a Calvinist reference?

@TRiG lol yes

I wish I knew why Calvinism freaks me out so much.

@TRiG lol well there are varying degrees of Calvinism :). Some of the views I've experssed on this site reflect the most extreme side (basically deterministic, some would go as far as to say you aren't responsible for your own actions), I'm not quite that bad IRL (although I do believe its determined I don't believe it absolves me of responsibility)...

6:29 PM

@waxeagle The thing is, the JWs are very definitely not Calvinists. And I don't even know any Calvinists in real life (well, the local Presbyterian minister, but only slightly, through the local community festival). Calvinism has had no great impact on my life. So why does it bother me so much?

@TRiG I don't know. The Calvinists I know (and its a lot cuz I grew up calivinist, went to a calivinist school and am still calvinist) are mostly great folks. Just like in every other sector of life there some I'd rather avoid...but thats true everywhere

I've said before that I'd quite like to believe in a decent God, if I thought there was any evidence for one, but if I truly believed in the god of Calvin, I hope I'd have the courage and moral fortitude to spit in his face. I think it's the notion of God hating humanity that freaks me out. That, and the way so many Calvinists seem to relish in the thought of others' suffering.

@waxeagle Have you heard of the Left Behind books?

@TRiG yes

I've read a few of them

I've been following slacktivist's deconstructions. The whole theme of the books seem to be nyarr nyarr told you so! It's not kind; it's not decent; it's not adult.

@TRiG I think you've misunderstood Calvin then

6:33 PM

@TRiG No it's not. And it's also not Calvinistic!

@waxeagle Very possibly.

@TRiG lol. Those books reflect a theological view point that while popular is fairly minority among Christians and the writing...oh my

and definitely not calvinist

@waxeagle Actually, come to think of it, LB doesn't do predestination, do they? So yes, not Calvinist,

Sorry.

But it's the same culture.

@TRiG lol tis ok.

@TRiG similar at least

@waxeagle And it's quite likely that I've misunderstood Calvin. I've certainly never read anything he wrote. I do know he executed people who disagreed with him, which I must admit does not warm me to the man.

I'm also thinking of Jonathan Edwards and the conscience of Huckleberry Finn.

(Now there's a phrase for Chomskian Bingo.)

6:37 PM

@TRiG I hadn't heard of this, I'm looking into it now

@waxeagle You're looking for the Servinus affair.

@Caleb just pulled something up

@TRiG The whole affair was a mess and likely the result of some mistakes Calvin and other reformers made and their own sinfulness, but in any event it's unfari to say he executed people who disagreed with him since it was the government at the time that both convicted and executed him and Calvin (while he thought him deserving of death) advocated first for other measures to be taken then petitioned at least for a more human form of punishment.

> During the trial it was Calvin's job as expert witness to prove that Servetus was a heretic. Calvin's expert reason and clear thinking triumphed when Servetus chose to hurl insults at Calvin rather than offer a defense. It is important to note that at this time the Council was not controlled by friends of Calvin but by his enemies, the patriots and libertines.

@Caleb Sinfulness? Or overweening arrogance?

6:44 PM

> Cont'd This is probably why Servetus felt that he did not have to offer a substantive defense against charges of heresy. We have a written record of the debate because each was required to write their statements and responses for review by the churches of four other prominent protestant cities.

And yes, that's a question. I don't know much about it.

@TRiG Which it was would be much more clear if you read some of his works.

@TRiG yes??

@Caleb I have no great interest in Calvin the man. It just sounds to me like he set himself up as an authority and, like most religious leaders, pretended to know things he couldn't possibly know. Quick judgment: arrogance. Could be wrong.

@TRiG reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99812.qna/category/ch/page/…

perhaps a bit more background would be appropriate then

6:48 PM

@TRiG Anybody who wrote detailed commentaries on almost every book of the Bible and compiled nearly encyclopedic references on points of theology can hardly be called quick to judgement.

@Caleb Sorry. I wasn't very clear there. I meant that was my quick judgment. And I could be wrong.

@TRiG Oh, ok then.

@Caleb It would have worked better in speech.

If he pretended to know things he couldn't possible know he managed to write very clear and detailed defenses of them using Scripture.

@TRiG Yes, I didn't catch the tone/pace switch.

@Caleb Well, all of religion is pretending to know stuff you couldn't possibly know. I just think you're a bit more culpable if you're a leader of some sort.

Anyhoo ... we're treading dangerously close to a discussion of theology.

6:52 PM

@TRiG That's something you hold against religion, not Calvin in particular. Logically you must hold the same true of me as a high rep user / moderator here.

@Caleb Aye. I did say earlier that I have no specific interest in Calvin the man. It remains a fact that Calvinism freaks me out far more than most other religions, and I don't really know why. Which is where this conversation started.

I'm not at all sure that I'm making sense.

There's an discussion of the Calvinist theologian Jonathan Edwards in Jonathan Bennett's essay The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn.

@TRiG Some actually. And I have a theory as to WHY you feel that way. Frankly I think it's a justifiable fear as long as it's identified and dealt with. Usually it's mis-identified and ignored.

@Caleb I just think a religion which teaches, straightforwardly and unapologetically, that God hates humanity is a bit iffy.

user image

« first day (41 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4585 days later) »

Transcript for

Oct '114

The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...

christianity discussion

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile