|
Hi guys, my name is Mark. I like Starcraft, lists, statistics, liberalism, literature, Claude Debussy, Metalcore, Mumford and Sons, and Jesus.
I've decided to create a small blog to keep my life straight. My brain can't always handle the high intake of information I force into it on a daily basis, and writing things down just seems like something that may help.
Before you continue reading I would like to address my faith, as that will most likely be the reason you clicked this blog in the first place. I am Christian. Catholic. I am not your generic Christian. I differ in many ways. I've read the Bible, for instance (What a shot!). I'll tell you first hand that it isn't all its cracked up to be. Do I believe its the Word of God? Yeah. I guess. Maybe. I'm not an Evangelical. I'm not the crazy Southern Baptist guy down the street. In the most surprising of circumstances, I'm not Republican. Yes, thats right. A non Republican Christian? I bet you're reeling right now. Your world is shattered. Well thats what I'm here for. 
I believe in three core values of Christianity. I'm pretty much all over the board doctrinally for everything else. I do not believe in the conscious eternal torment of Hell for instance. The idea is preposterous to be frank. I do not believe that all scripture is timeless, inerrant truth.
But yes. I am still a Christian. I love Jesus with my all my heart, soul, mind (especially mind), and strength.
I have been lurking and occasionally trolling internet forums for a few years now. I have always taken a particular interest in the God debate threads. As you all have noticed, the internet is primarily one great, big, vehement atheist. I will let you know that this blog is not going to be a debate. Like, ever. I am knowledgeable on Christianity, Atheism, and Philosophy in general, but my debate etiquette is astoundingly poor. I will instead focus mainly on my brain, and the grind of my life. And I will rant. Be sure of that.
If you have questions for me, I will happily guess an answer for you. In the mean time, I have a question for you. How do you feel about religion? Do you believe in a God? Let me know.
Until next time, peace out guys.
To come to the pleasure you have not, you must go by a way in which you enjoy not
-St. John of the Cross
  
|
I comprise a small piece of the vast vehement atheist that is the internet.
If I wasn't an atheist, I would probably be one of those crazy Southern Baptist guys down the street like the rest of my family, and would take offense to that. Good thing I agree that those guys are crazy! 
Good luck with your blog, I made a blog about how much I loved being an atheist and the people posting took it far to seriously and got it closed after a somewhat mild flame war.
Edit: I do have a question, actually. As a Catholic, have you ever paid tithing to a church? If yes, how have you justified that?
|
Hi GeneralissimoNero,
I've got two questions for you, considering you don't seem to be closed-minded and you seem to be a breath of fresh air (very different in opinion from most religious people I've talked to recently):
1. Are there any scientific facts or theories that you reject on religious grounds (like evolution or the big bang)?
2. Why do you believe in God and, in particular, the Christian god (as opposed to any other deities)?
Thanks I look forward to your responses.
|
Ex-Catholic atheist here. I see the Church as a mix of smug self-congratulatory intellectual laziness and blue-collar immigrant ignorance. Nice folks, though.
Out of curiosity, why do you consider yourself Catholic when you're consciously "all over the board" theologically? The catechism is clear that this is NOT OK, unless you're one of those folks who thinks you can "interpret" your way out of the plain meanings of scripture and church teachings.
Also, you seem very proud of yourself for reading scripture. That's a nice starting point for our protestant brothers, I guess, but do you read the fathers?
|
I think believing that everything is going to be alright and that everything happens for a reason, coupled with the promise of everlasting life in exchange for blind faith appeals to more people than accepting the obvious.
|
Cool, I was looking for someone to help lead one of those 'Religion Discussions' in general about educating the ignorant/lazy masses about the different denominations of the church, how just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you believe in polygamy and crazy Southern-Baptist nonsense PM me if you're interested
|
I'm rather shocked. You don't believe in Hell nor that the Word is completely true? So where do people who don't believe in Jesus go? And if the Bible is God's word, then what do you think of the verse that goes, "all scripture is god breathed", and that God cannot lie? Very confused, please elaborate.
|
Contrary to popular belief, only about 60% of christians [http://religions.pewforum.org] are republican so it's not suprising. I'm a protestant libertarian and most of my family is the same (thanks to me converting their political beliefs ).
So common questions about your theology.
1. Is Christ God?
2. What is required to have salvation from sins?
3. What is the punishment for sin?
The answer to those 3 questions is usually quick enough to determine someone's theology.
|
Are you actually a theologian? Do you study religion academically?
|
|
|
On March 15 2011 06:56 krndandaman wrote:
^when did Christians and polygamy ever become associated? lol
@OP these days many people identify themselves as either 'Christian' or 'Catholic', not both. Quite curious as to why you identify yourself with both.
In addition to that, I feel like your belief is very eclectic and doesn't fit into any one type of 'religion'. To me it sounds paradoxical that a Christian doesn't believe in a conscious eternal torment of hell and that the scripture is timeless, inerrant truth. The teachings of Jesus claim both to be facts.
So, what exactly do you define yourself as? Or do you just stick with Christian/Catholic for simplicity's sake?
Really? Since Catholicism a subset of Christianity, I think that a Catholic must necessarilty identity one's self as Christian o.O I think he meant something along the lines of "I'm Christian. Catholic, in particular." That's how I read it, anyway. That being said, he appears to be more of a Casual Christian, or a "Christian out of tradition", although I'm definitely interested in hearing his responses to our questions so that he can provide clarity
|
I have a question: Where did the writers of the Bible 'knew' how God created everything?
Also how are Christians sure that God loves us or even cares about us?
|
On March 15 2011 05:29 Meta wrote:
I do have a question, actually. As a Catholic, have you ever paid tithing to a church? If yes, how have you justified that?
I don't pay tithing, as I am quite young. I don't quite understand what you mean by how do I justify it. Do you think it is bad?
On March 15 2011 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Hi GeneralissimoNero, I've got two questions for you, considering you don't seem to be closed-minded and you seem to be a breath of fresh air (very different in opinion from most religious people I've talked to recently): 1. Are there any scientific facts or theories that you reject on religious grounds (like evolution or the big bang)? 2. Why do you believe in God and, in particular, the Christian god (as opposed to any other deities)? Thanks I look forward to your responses.
I do not reject Evolution or the Big Bang. You may not know this, but this stance is the generally accepted official stance of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul said a decade back that he has officially accepted Evolution. On another note, I would believe Evolution anyway. I refuse to be "that guy", the one who lives in ignorance and "consecrates" himself from basic knowledge. I've studied Evolution and have decided for myself that it is true. Also anyone who has read Genesis thoroughly and has read the first few chapters in the original Hebrew would no beyond doubt that there is no quarrel between Evolution and Christianity.
On March 15 2011 06:01 SiegeMode wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you consider yourself Catholic when you're consciously "all over the board" theologically? The catechism is clear that this is NOT OK, unless you're one of those folks who thinks you can "interpret" your way out of the plain meanings of scripture and church teachings.
Also, you seem very proud of yourself for reading scripture. That's a nice starting point for our protestant brothers, I guess, but do you read the fathers?
I feel very strongly that denominations encompass all Christians. We have denominations for everything. I also feel that I can't completely agree with all 2865 articles of the Catechism. I don't think anyone really does. If everyone read it cover to cover they would find something that they didn't really like. I consider myself Catholic because I put large emphasis on tradition, rather that scripture alone.
Also, I do read the Fathers. The defining point of Christianity was in 325 AD, at the Nicene Council. I own EVERY SINGLE WRITING of the Ante-Nicene era. Well, actually, theres this guy named Origen, who wrote about 6000 letters, and most of them haven't been translated to English. But other than him, I have everything. Since I put such an emphasis on tradition, I feel that I should know what the early Christians thought.
|
On March 15 2011 06:02 TheGreatWhiteHope_ wrote:
I think believing that everything is going to be alright and that everything happens for a reason, coupled with the promise of everlasting life in exchange for blind faith appeals to more people than accepting the obvious.
Duh.
On March 15 2011 06:46 happyft wrote:
I'm rather shocked. You don't believe in Hell nor that the Word is completely true? So where do people who don't believe in Jesus go? And if the Bible is God's word, then what do you think of the verse that goes, "all scripture is god breathed", and that God cannot lie? Very confused, please elaborate.
Lets address the Bible thing first. THE BIBLE states that THE BIBLE is written by God. It has no merit but its own. Therefore, if I don't believe that the letter written by Paul in which he says "All scripture is god breathed", is of God, then it immediately negates the idea that all scripture is God breathed.
Secondly, I don't think you need to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven. Not knowing or believing does not mean rejecting. Some people are so disillusioned to the Christian faith that no amount of evidence would convince them that God exists. A child who dies at the age of 5 from starvation, and never even had the time to THINK about whether there is a God, because he was too busy scrounging for food to feed his younger sibling, does NOT go to Hell. Thats not biblical.
That being said, he appears to be more of a Casual Christian, or a "Christian out of tradition", although I'm definitely interested in hearing his responses to our questions so that he can provide clarity
I was raised in the Catholic Church, but I was consciously atheist at the age of 5. I was a deep thinker. I was atheist until 2008.
|
On March 15 2011 07:10 GeneralissimoNero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Hi GeneralissimoNero, I've got two questions for you, considering you don't seem to be closed-minded and you seem to be a breath of fresh air (very different in opinion from most religious people I've talked to recently): 1. Are there any scientific facts or theories that you reject on religious grounds (like evolution or the big bang)? 2. Why do you believe in God and, in particular, the Christian god (as opposed to any other deities)? Thanks I look forward to your responses. I do not reject Evolution or the Big Bang. You may not know this, but this stance is the generally accepted official stance of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul said a decade back that he has officially accepted Evolution. On another note, I would believe Evolution anyway. I refuse to be "that guy", the one who lives in ignorance and "consecrates" himself from basic knowledge. I've studied Evolution and have decided for myself that it is true. Also anyone who has read Genesis thoroughly and has read the first few chapters in the original Hebrew would no beyond doubt that there is no quarrel between Evolution and Christianity.
I am indeed aware that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution (and that multiple recent popes have said this), and I'm glad that you do too Would you mind answering my second question, which is really two parts? Here it is again:
Why do you believe in God and, in particular, the Christian god (as opposed to any other deities)?
Thanks!
|
On March 15 2011 07:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I am indeed aware that the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution (and that multiple recent popes have said this), and I'm glad that you do too Would you mind answering my second question, which is really two parts? Here it is again: Why do you believe in God and, in particular, the Christian god (as opposed to any other deities)? Thanks!
The first part is kinda tough. I believe in God, not because of one thing, but because of many. I have many reasons to believe that God doesn't exist, also. So really I don't know if I can give you one concise answer.
As for the second part, its a bit easier. I have studied other religions quite seriously, and know for a fact that Christianity has much more evidence to its name then others. To assess Mormonism, it is on the word of Joseph Smith alone that we must believe him. That he was confronted by Moroni. For Islam, it is on the word of Muhammad alone. He was confronted in a cave by Gabriel, and we must believe him. Christianity is quite different. Yes we must believe on Jesus' merit alone that he is God. However, unlike the Book of Mormon, written by one man, or the Qu'ran, written by one man, we have the New Testament, written by many, all of whom were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus. We also have people claiming that Jesus was resurrected, and we have them willing to die horrible deaths for that claim. Thats just the tip of it, I guess.
Edit: I am aware that the Qu'ran was not actually written by Muhammad, but were just a record of his sayings written 25 years later. I consider it entirely similar to the Book of Mormon though. It is on the word of Muhammad, filtered through his scribes.
|
On March 15 2011 07:18 GeneralissimoNero wrote:
Lets address the Bible thing first. THE BIBLE states that THE BIBLE is written by God. It has no merit but its own. Therefore, if I don't believe that the letter written by Paul in which he says "All scripture is god breathed", is of God, then it immediately negates the idea that all scripture is God breathed.
Interesting point. If the bible has no merit but it's own, and if you (or I, for that matter) believe one part of it is false, what legitimizes the rest of it? Why is it worth believing or studying if you get to pick which parts are true and which parts aren't?
And with regard to your previous question, yes I do think paying tithing to the Catholic church is hard to justify. They are already one of the wealthiest organization in the history of mankind, and they've been proven dozens and dozens of times to financially support pedophiles.
But that's not a point I feel worth discussing in this topic or in general on this website. I'm much more interested in your interpretation of the bible and how/why you believe it to be true
Edit: Ah, I just read your post above mine. Consider this:
Let's just say we assume Joseph Smith "wrote" the book of Mormon, and that Muhammad's words were more or less transcribed accurately into the Qu-ran. These holy texts, then, were written by one person, whereas the Bible was written by multiple accounts, which gives it more merit (this is what you believe, right? I don't want to misinterpret.)
My counterpoint would be that Jesus is no different from Joseph Smith or Muhammad except that he got his account recognized by more than one literate person. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies between the different accounts of the events in the Bible. If anything, shouldn't this remove merit from the Bible in favor of the other texts?
|
I am a Christian and I also believe in God. It's interesting to me how quickly people who think they are so intelligent are so dismissive of the existence of god. "I believe in science" is always a classic argument. There is actually no science that contradicts the existence of god. I'm talking about the mere existence of god, not any specific religions or whatever. I don't mind if people have a different view on god from me. (I also have nothing against you if you don't believe in god. People are free to come to their own conclusions.) People just seem to think that belief in god directly correlates with stupidity, and the smart people like to pretend they know better than others.
First, an argument against belief in god is burden of proof. People always say prove it or god doesn't exist. This argument isn't particularly effective in my opinion because I can't prove anyone's existence besides my own. I can't actually prove you exist, or anything exists besides myself, but the fact that I think, and that I think about these things, is enough to tell me they exist and justify my beliefs in their existence from a logical standpoint.
Basically, how could I think up something that does not exist if I exist? Here I will preemptively argue against stuff like unicorns by saying they are clearly grounded in reality, like from a horse or whatever.
The second argument I hear is this: why does god let so much pain and suffering occur? Because ultimately, life is finite while heaven is infinite. So let's look at this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's say suffering in this world = -5000 units of pleasure. Now pleasure in heaven = infinity. Infinity-5000=infinity. Also, the fact that people have experienced suffering during life allows them to recognize happiness and bliss.
But how do you know heaven exists? Well, I don't pretend like there is a physical place up in the sky where we go to chill on clouds after we die. But I can easily believe that the state of our mind is permanent when we die. Clearly, we won't be experiencing new things after we die. If I am happy with my life when I die, then I will be in heaven. This can be simplified to if I did good things, I will be in heaven. And everyone I know, everything I did, will be forever preserved as such.
Now, you might argue that you could be happy when you die even without believing in god. But how can you? You will always want to live longer if you don't believe there is anything for you after death. You can't ever be satisfied with your life. You might come to the conclusion that you can't have any more of life, and come to terms with said conclusion, but you would still readily accept life over death if you had the opportunity, and therefore you can't be satisfied. Therefore, you won't be truly happy with the fact that you are dying, and therefore you won't be in heaven.
Life is so short. Basically, I wish people would believe that life is not meaningless or trivial, which it would be if nothing existed permanently, god.
|
On March 15 2011 06:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Are you actually a theologian? Do you study religion academically?
Since this year I've been putting effort into trying to get into the master's program for my school's religious studies department after I finish my commerce undergrad. I've been talking to various professors in the Western Thought area (including the head of the department) and I am going to be writing some research papers under the guidance of one of the professors I have become close with despite ideological differences and differences in our main interests (his focus is in Patristics and he personally is an orthodox leaning {specifically he is a Barthian} while I am interested in contemporary philosophical theology with a liberal leaning {Tillich, Levinas, Derrida}).
One of the main things I've learned ever since I truly dove into these studies last summer is that I really had no idea about what is within the academic studies of religion, particularly the anthropological and sociological streams. Even the people that really do have an interest in philosophy or theology don't actually know anything about what they talk about unless they've really studied it.
So are you in an academic program? If so, then is it under a secular department or at an explicitly religious seminary? What figures and streams of thought are you mainly interested in?
|
On March 15 2011 06:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Are you actually a theologian? Do you study religion academically?
I'm curious as well - theological studies are actually quite respectable and would, to me, represent a merit for your case.
Atm this thread is kinda like a "Ask me about being a Nihilist" thread posted by someone who never studied philosophy.
|
On March 15 2011 07:36 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 07:18 GeneralissimoNero wrote:
Lets address the Bible thing first. THE BIBLE states that THE BIBLE is written by God. It has no merit but its own. Therefore, if I don't believe that the letter written by Paul in which he says "All scripture is god breathed", is of God, then it immediately negates the idea that all scripture is God breathed. Interesting point. If the bible has no merit but it's own, and if you (or I, for that matter) believe one part of it is false, what legitimizes the rest of it? Why is it worth believing or studying if you get to pick which parts are true and which parts aren't? And with regard to your previous question, yes I do think paying tithing to the Catholic church is hard to justify. They are already one of the wealthiest organization in the history of mankind, and they've been proven dozens and dozens of times to financially support pedophiles. But that's not a point I feel worth discussing in this topic or in general on this website. I'm much more interested in your interpretation of the bible and how/why you believe it to be true.
I would like to point out that your tax money goes to a government that funds healthcare for pedophiles. I tithe to my church, which goes to my diocese, and funds my local churches. I love my priest. Also, he is not a pedophile.
Secondly, I don't necessarily pick and choose which parts are God breathed. One of my favorite books is the Confessions by St. Augustine. I do believe that his writing was inspired by God and God breathed, but no it is not scripture. Just because I don't believe that Paul's letters are the inerrant word of God doesn't mean that he doesn't contain very accurate first hand accounts of Jesus, and that he is not passing on teachings from Jesus himself.
|
How do you feel about religion? Do you believe in a God?
I don't believe in any god, and I believe religion is a plague of the mind, and completely unnecessary in all instances.
|
On March 15 2011 06:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Are you actually a theologian? Do you study religion academically?
Kind of an ambiguous answer to your question. I'm a senior in high school. I'm quite young, as I said before. However, I attend a private high school where I do have a theology class. I have a very close acquaintance with the teacher though. He had me teach the class last week. So, while I don't take a formal collegiate Theology class, I have a great passion for it and spend much of my time studying it. I will be attending a college next year with a major in theology. I hope this doesn't do damage to my merit. I believe my responses show sufficient knowledge. I am a theologian by definition, but not by profession. Yet. Till then, I work at subway 
|
Norway28657 Posts
On March 15 2011 06:46 happyft wrote:
I'm rather shocked. You don't believe in Hell nor that the Word is completely true? So where do people who don't believe in Jesus go? And if the Bible is God's word, then what do you think of the verse that goes, "all scripture is god breathed", and that God cannot lie? Very confused, please elaborate.
even the pope has disbanded the view of a literal "hell". rather, "hell" is merely the absense of being connected with god, which is a hellish experience compared to being connected.
|
I thought I knew a lot about philosophy and theology too, but after seriously studying I realized how much of a dumbass I was. When I got back to the head of the department a few weeks ago I told him that I now realized when I first spoke to him last year about my desire to get into the master's program, I had no idea how ignorant I was about things and he answered, "that's normal, I'm glad you understand now."
You probably don't know anything right now, and I mean this. Don't go calling yourself a theologian; something like this is as unbearable as hearing a first year philosophy student calling himself a philosopher. You might understand some basic themes and be knowledgeable of some things more than other students, but just remember that this alone doesn't mean much.
If you're majoring in theology it seems like you're planning on entering a religious seminary, rather than a secular department.
|
On March 15 2011 07:52 GeneralissimoNero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 06:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Are you actually a theologian? Do you study religion academically? Kind of an ambiguous answer to your question. I'm a senior in high school. I'm quite young, as I said before. However, I attend a private high school where I do have a theology class. I have a very close acquaintance with the teacher though. He had me teach the class last week. So, while I don't take a formal collegiate Theology class, I have a great passion for it and spend much of my time studying it. I will be attending a college next year with a major in theology. I hope this doesn't do damage to my merit. I believe my responses show sufficient knowledge. I am a theologian by definition, but not by profession. Yet. Till then, I work at subway
I really have no idea at the level you're being taught at your private high school but there's a huge gap between an education from just high school and university. A gap to the point where self study I don't think can cover. Also
On March 15 2011 07:18 GeneralissimoNero wrote:
Secondly, I don't think you need to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven. Not knowing or believing does not mean rejecting.
this line of yours makes me wonder. Can you clarify on this line. I'm not a christian but I have a lot
of friends who are devout Christians who tell me the whole basis of being a Christian was in believing that Jesus is the son of God and that he was crucified on the cross for everyone's sin. It says in John 3:16 the only way to go to heaven is to believe in Jesus so what you said really contradicts that.
|
There's some streams of theology where the divinity of Christ is swept away though. Schleiermacher, for example, pretty much didn't think Christ was God, or that he was born perfect amongst other humans. Pretty much since Schleiermacher there have always been some thinkers, particularly in liberal Protestantism, that eschew the belief in a divine Christ and only look at the wholly human Christ.
But Catholics don't follow this. In fact, my prof has told me an amusing story about how when he was young, he once had a Catholic lecturer, who was an ordained priest, go on a rather shocking yet interesting speech on the very first class about how the traditional Christian doctrine about Christ's essence being both wholly God and wholly man in one body with no separation is just completely illogical and nonsense. There was a disgruntled Catholic student in the class however, who secretly recorded the priest's lecture and gave it to the local Catholic diocese. The priest was never seen again.
|
Why did you choose to believe in the bible and not the scriptures of some other religion? Isn't it primarily a product of where you were born and how your parents raised you? This always kinda bothered me about religion. If there were only one religion in the world I'd probably be more inclined to believe its teachings.
|
On March 15 2011 08:03 koreasilver wrote:
I thought I knew a lot about philosophy and theology too, but after seriously studying I realized how much of a dumbass I was. When I got back to the head of the department a few weeks ago I told him that I now realized when I first spoke to him last year about my desire to get into the master's program, I had no idea how ignorant I was about things and he answered, "that's normal, I'm glad you understand now."
You probably don't know anything right now, and I mean this. Don't go calling yourself a theologian; something like this is as unbearable as hearing a first year philosophy student calling himself a philosopher. You might understand some basic themes and be knowledgeable of some things more than other students, but just remember that this alone doesn't mean much.
If you're majoring in theology it seems like you're planning on entering a religious seminary, rather than a secular department.
I am, by definition a Theologian. No, I have yet to attend college for it, but I'm answering the most basic of questions right now. People asked me why I believe in the Christian God. It doesn't take eight years of teaching to understand something that basic. Besides, I am quite prepared for a theology course. I do self studying, yes, but I've listened to plenty of lectures by college profs. Its not complicated stuff. I out debated a coworker on the existence of God and he has a masters degree in philosophy. I'm no amateur. I understand far more than basic themes.
|
Oh man, your hubris is going to bite you in the future one day.
Also: your coworker at subway has a master's in philosophy. That means he failed to make it academically; he's not a bright shining example of success. Arguments about the existence of God is probably the most useless argument you could ever engage in about religion as well. You really haven't proven anything.
|
Papal infallibility: yes or no?
edit: Ah, it's highly inappropriate for you to call yourself a theologian lol.
A first year biochemist isn't going to go around saying he's a biochemist, regardless of how well he did in a high school exam or how books he'd read.
Someone who just passed the written FSOT isn't going to call himself a diplomat, either.
|
On March 15 2011 08:25 koreasilver wrote:
Oh man, your hubris is going to bite you in the future one day.
I'm not arrogant. You said I don't know anything. I defended myself.
If you want to help me answer the questions that the people give me, then thats awesome. You seem really well versed in German protestant theologians. I have to say, I am not.
|
On March 15 2011 08:26 Elegy wrote:
Papal infallibility: yes or no?
Oh man. Ya know, to be honest, I don't really buy it. Thats a tough one though. I guess It would go back to that whole "merit" thing. The Pope has no merit for this but his own. But I am very open to the idea. The encyclicals by Benedict and John Paul II are sooooo good. I respect the Popes so much.
|
On March 15 2011 08:19 GeneralissimoNero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 08:03 koreasilver wrote:
I thought I knew a lot about philosophy and theology too, but after seriously studying I realized how much of a dumbass I was. When I got back to the head of the department a few weeks ago I told him that I now realized when I first spoke to him last year about my desire to get into the master's program, I had no idea how ignorant I was about things and he answered, "that's normal, I'm glad you understand now."
You probably don't know anything right now, and I mean this. Don't go calling yourself a theologian; something like this is as unbearable as hearing a first year philosophy student calling himself a philosopher. You might understand some basic themes and be knowledgeable of some things more than other students, but just remember that this alone doesn't mean much.
If you're majoring in theology it seems like you're planning on entering a religious seminary, rather than a secular department. I am, by definition a Theologian. No, I have yet to attend college for it, but I'm answering the most basic of questions right now. People asked me why I believe in the Christian God. It doesn't take eight years of teaching to understand something that basic. Besides, I am quite prepared for a theology course. I do self studying, yes, but I've listened to plenty of lectures by college profs. Its not complicated stuff. I out debated a coworker on the existence of God and he has a masters degree in philosophy. I'm no amateur. I understand far more than basic themes.
A PhD in philosophy and 1 dollar will get you a coffee at starbucks.
|
As it bothers you guys so much that I called myself a theologian, I will from henceforth refer to myself with the honorary title of "That Guy".
|
The thing is, you and I, we are amateurs. We have to understand this and always remember that we are only students. I might always be at the top of my religion classes despite only seriously considering a future in religious studies a year ago but that by itself doesn't mean anything in the academic world. Its pretty rough, and the sheer amount of information and understanding you face once you open the doors is just absolutely overwhelming. In the face of all this we really don't know anything. The problem with calling yourself a theologian comes from this: an amateur should not and cannot call himself by a title that is given to a professional. You don't call a med school student a doctor, nor do you call a law school student a lawyer. By the same means, a philosophy student should never be called a philosopher nor should a student at a seminary be called a theologian.
|
On March 15 2011 08:44 koreasilver wrote:
The thing is, you and I, we are amateurs. We have to understand this and always remember that we are only students. I might always be at the top of my religion classes despite only seriously considering a future in religious studies a year ago but that by itself doesn't mean anything in the academic world. Its pretty rough, and the sheer amount of information and understanding you face once you open the doors is just absolutely overwhelming. In the face of all this we really don't know anything. The problem with calling yourself a theologian comes from this: an amateur should not and cannot call himself by a title that is given to a professional. You don't call a med school student a doctor, nor do you call a law school student a lawyer. By the same means, a philosophy student should never be called a philosopher nor should a student at a seminary be called a theologian.
Ah hell. You're right. Now I don't know what to call my blog though...
|
On March 15 2011 08:47 GeneralissimoNero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 08:44 koreasilver wrote:
The thing is, you and I, we are amateurs. We have to understand this and always remember that we are only students. I might always be at the top of my religion classes despite only seriously considering a future in religious studies a year ago but that by itself doesn't mean anything in the academic world. Its pretty rough, and the sheer amount of information and understanding you face once you open the doors is just absolutely overwhelming. In the face of all this we really don't know anything. The problem with calling yourself a theologian comes from this: an amateur should not and cannot call himself by a title that is given to a professional. You don't call a med school student a doctor, nor do you call a law school student a lawyer. By the same means, a philosophy student should never be called a philosopher nor should a student at a seminary be called a theologian. Ah hell. You're right. Now I don't know what to call my blog though...
add "aspiring" in the title!
Or maybe someone can make a sweet pun to make it even more interesting...can't think of any, though
|
Australia326 Posts
On March 15 2011 05:12 GeneralissimoNero wrote:I've read the Bible, for instance (What a shot!). I'll tell you first hand that it isn't all its cracked up to be. Do I believe its the Word of God? Yeah. I guess. Maybe. I'm not an Evangelical. I'm not the crazy Southern Baptist guy down the street. In the most surprising of circumstances, I'm not Republican. Yes, thats right. A non Republican Christian? I bet you're reeling right now. Your world is shattered. Well thats what I'm here for. I believe in three core values of Christianity. I'm pretty much all over the board doctrinally for everything else. I do not believe in the conscious eternal torment of Hell for instance. The idea is preposterous to be frank. I do not believe that all scripture is timeless, inerrant truth. This confuses me. If you do not believe all scripture is truth, then do you only pick bits here and there which fit your world view?
Also, please elaborate about the aforementioned 'three core values', I'm curious.
Many thanks.
|
On March 15 2011 08:49 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 08:47 GeneralissimoNero wrote:On March 15 2011 08:44 koreasilver wrote:
The thing is, you and I, we are amateurs. We have to understand this and always remember that we are only students. I might always be at the top of my religion classes despite only seriously considering a future in religious studies a year ago but that by itself doesn't mean anything in the academic world. Its pretty rough, and the sheer amount of information and understanding you face once you open the doors is just absolutely overwhelming. In the face of all this we really don't know anything. The problem with calling yourself a theologian comes from this: an amateur should not and cannot call himself by a title that is given to a professional. You don't call a med school student a doctor, nor do you call a law school student a lawyer. By the same means, a philosophy student should never be called a philosopher nor should a student at a seminary be called a theologian. Ah hell. You're right. Now I don't know what to call my blog though... add "aspiring" in the title! Or maybe someone can make a sweet pun to make it even more interesting...can't think of any, though
I think that'll work.
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kDoyvibiZag/R2kfOv6rdpI/AAAAAAAABNw/l8YqAjfeIEU/s320/BurnsExcellentSticker.jpg)
|
Haha, just put something about being a will-be theology student.
Do you know much about modern theology? In modern times it seems like Catholicism is really dead in academics compared to the various Protestant streams. I can really only think of Rahner when it comes to modern theology.
I usually don't have any interest in patristics but I find Augustine to always be interesting. One of the research papers I'm writing this summer will largely revolve around Augustine.
|
On March 15 2011 08:55 koreasilver wrote:
Haha, just put something about being a will-be theology student.
Do you know much about modern theology? In modern times it seems like Catholicism is really dead in academics compared to the various Protestant streams. I can really only think of Rahner when it comes to modern theology.
I usually don't have any interest in patristics but I find Augustine to always be interesting. One of the research papers I'm writing this summer will largely revolve around Augustine.
Catholicism is dead. I can confirm it. Teen Catholics don't care. At all. And no I don't know any modern theologians. Its cliche, but I love C.S. Lewis. The pages of my copy of Mere Christianity is pretty much yellow. I've highlighted just about everything.
|
On March 15 2011 08:52 palookieblue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 05:12 GeneralissimoNero wrote:I've read the Bible, for instance (What a shot!). I'll tell you first hand that it isn't all its cracked up to be. Do I believe its the Word of God? Yeah. I guess. Maybe. I'm not an Evangelical. I'm not the crazy Southern Baptist guy down the street. In the most surprising of circumstances, I'm not Republican. Yes, thats right. A non Republican Christian? I bet you're reeling right now. Your world is shattered. Well thats what I'm here for. I believe in three core values of Christianity. I'm pretty much all over the board doctrinally for everything else. I do not believe in the conscious eternal torment of Hell for instance. The idea is preposterous to be frank. I do not believe that all scripture is timeless, inerrant truth. Also, please elaborate about the aforementioned 'three core values', I'm curious. Many thanks.
The sovereignty and foreknowledge of God, Total Depravity/Original Sin, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I can explain these more in depth if you like. Tomorrow. Too lazy tonight...
|
On March 15 2011 08:52 palookieblue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 05:12 GeneralissimoNero wrote:I've read the Bible, for instance (What a shot!). I'll tell you first hand that it isn't all its cracked up to be. Do I believe its the Word of God? Yeah. I guess. Maybe. I'm not an Evangelical. I'm not the crazy Southern Baptist guy down the street. In the most surprising of circumstances, I'm not Republican. Yes, thats right. A non Republican Christian? I bet you're reeling right now. Your world is shattered. Well thats what I'm here for. I believe in three core values of Christianity. I'm pretty much all over the board doctrinally for everything else. I do not believe in the conscious eternal torment of Hell for instance. The idea is preposterous to be frank. I do not believe that all scripture is timeless, inerrant truth. This confuses me. If you do not believe all scripture is truth, then do you only pick bits here and there which fit your world view? Also, please elaborate about the aforementioned 'three core values', I'm curious. Many thanks.
The problem of scripture is that the fundamentalist "everything must be literally true" view is a very modern way of thinking. If we actually look back at how theologians thought during the scholastic period, a great deal of scriptural interpretation wasn't literal, and basically all theologians thought there were metaphorical and allegorical themes everywhere.
There's also the fact that there has always been a "canon within a canon" when the church approached scripture. Some parts of the bible simply hold a higher place than others and this has certainly been true for the entire history of Christianity.
|
|
|
On March 15 2011 09:01 GeneralissimoNero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 08:55 koreasilver wrote:
Haha, just put something about being a will-be theology student.
Do you know much about modern theology? In modern times it seems like Catholicism is really dead in academics compared to the various Protestant streams. I can really only think of Rahner when it comes to modern theology.
I usually don't have any interest in patristics but I find Augustine to always be interesting. One of the research papers I'm writing this summer will largely revolve around Augustine. Catholicism is dead. I can confirm it. Teen Catholics don't care. At all. And no I don't know any modern theologians. Its cliche, but I love C.S. Lewis. The pages of my copy of Mere Christianity is pretty much yellow. I've highlighted just about everything.
I think the stagnation has a lot to do with how controlled everything is by the whole ecclesiastical structure. Everything needs to be approved and stand in line with official doctrine or it is shot down (like that priest in my prof's story). I believe Rahner had conflict with the church because of reasons like this. The only really big thing in modern Catholic theology I can think of is neo-Thomism, and well, Thomism has been officially endorsed by the Catholic church for a really long time and the revival of the sort of orthodox scholasticism kinda replaced the more radical ways of thought that were present in Catholicism. I just haven't really seen much radical theologians except for a few liberation theologians who were, unsurprisingly, shut down by the Vatican for their sympathy to Marxism.
I guess no one can be surprised that Protestant theology is more varied and vibrant.
|
So... open admission that you can pick and chose whatever you want to believe and it is entirely up to human interpretation? Well, that is the only sort of religion that will survive in the first world country, I guess. Let people believe whatever vague ideas they want to believe and slap the label Christianity on it.
What I am saying here is, why bother with the foundation of Christianity if you are just going to modify it to your personal desire? In either case, Christianity becomes synonymous with "Opinion".
|
I have no interest in Biblical hermeneutics and I'm not a Christian anyway because the question, what is a Christian? has become one that really doesn't have an answer. Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly.
Obviously the fact that various people interpret the same text differently can cause issues, but the fact that it is openly interpreted in different ways is a good thing. Imagine some totalitarian ecclesiastical regime prescribed one way of interpretation and no other - there would be no life in this.
Despite all the problems of Christianity, there are some very rich and vibrant things within various thinkers that are worth looking at.
|
Could you clarify this line
Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly. Not really sure what you meant by that. You don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans?
|
On March 15 2011 10:02 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Could you clarify this line Show nested quote +Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly. Not really sure what you meant by that. You don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans?
I don't believe that Christ was first amongst humans in some sort of idealistic or transcendental way. He was a great man in many ways (for example, despite the misogyny all throughout the canonical texts, there aren't recorded any sexist remarks from Christ, even despite the fact that a great deal of the gospels were written and edited to serve ulterior motives; I am a bit inclined to believe that Christ really did think of women in a radically different way from his contemporaries). But despite the great things about Christ I just can't find any real reason to believe that he was the greatest man that there ever was, or that he was the culmination of humanity in the perfect spiritual being (which is kiiiiinda what Schleiermacher was trying to say).
|
On March 15 2011 10:09 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 10:02 Ilikestarcraft wrote:Could you clarify this line Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly. Not really sure what you meant by that. You don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans? I don't believe that Christ was first amongst humans in some sort of idealistic or transcendental way. He was a great man in many ways (for example, despite the misogyny all throughout the canonical texts, there aren't recorded any sexist remarks from Christ, even despite the fact that a great deal of the gospels were written and edited to serve ulterior motives; I am a bit inclined to believe that Christ really did think of women in a radically different way from his contemporaries). But despite the great things about Christ I just can't find any real reason to believe that he was the greatest man that there ever was, or that he was the culmination of humanity in the perfect spiritual being (which is kiiiiinda what Schleiermacher was trying to say).
If not him, them who?
|
Well, I'm not a messianist, so I don't believe there must be a savior figure. It's one of the prime reasons I cannot be a Christian even in a Schleiermachian way.
|
On March 15 2011 09:58 koreasilver wrote:
I have no interest in Biblical hermeneutics and I'm not a Christian anyway because the question, what is a Christian? has become one that really doesn't have an answer. Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly.
Obviously the fact that various people interpret the same text differently can cause issues, but the fact that it is openly interpreted in different ways is a good thing. Imagine some totalitarian ecclesiastical regime prescribed one way of interpretation and no other - there would be no life in this.
Despite all the problems of Christianity, there are some very rich and vibrant things within various thinkers that are worth looking at.
So then what is theology anyway? This is a serious question from an atheistic layman.
Going by Wikipedia it's the study of religion. If you're saying that your beliefs don't fit with any organized religion (at least that's how it appears that you're answering that question), what makes you a theologian? Is it just contemplating about god? How do you define godhood? What's the main difference between theology and plain philosophy? And so on.
Actually looking at it again you've pretty much dodged the question. Assuming that your faith is at least partly based on the Bible, how do you justify taking it seriously at all when you've allowed yourself to determine which parts of it are meaningful and which parts are not? How can you interpret a holy text like that and still hold it as holy?
|
Why did you choose to become a catholic rather than any other religion?
|
Theology is basically a study of God. I take a nonconfessional approach to it without adhering to established doctrine. In my studies in my classes right now pretty much what I do is learn the methodology and ways of thinking Christians have undertaken from the early church until now. I learn this largely in the perspective of an outsider as I'm not Christian. The study of religion is different from theology in that religious studies encompasses far more than just the study of doctrine; theology is just one vein. My main interest might be theology but I would not be receiving a degree in theology, those are generally only done in seminaries. For example, as I attend a secular department in a university, even despite the sort of Christian history to the department (like most departments from established universities), there's a great deal of a sort of liberal scientific approach to it. You might be surprised at how many atheists take classes in the program out of interest in learning about religion in a nonconfessional way, most particularly in the cultural and sociological veins of modern religious studies.
My faith isn't based on the Bible at all, and I don't hold it to be holy. All I did was simply explain Biblical hermeneutics as it has been since the beginnings of modern theology and that historically the reading of the bible was not wholly literalistic like modern fundamentalists falsely believe it to have been.
Oh, and the difference between theology and philosophy is something a lot of people don't seem to really get. For example, theology proper, or often called revelational theology, only looks at religious text for the study of God. In this sense it is nonapologetic, as it speaks only to the church and only to the believer; it doesn't think it needs to communicate with anything outside of it. This sort of theology generally eschews philosophy and considers it as unnecessary or as a corrupting force. Revelational theology only needs its own doctrine, the dialog with the questioning and skeptical nature of philosophy is unnecessary for them (Luther and Barth, for example).
Since I don't adhere to a religion and my primary focus in my studies of religion is a question of being, nothingness, and the relation to God, my approach is always philosophical because I cannot and do not hold any written work as objective truth. In a confessional context this would be an apologetic approach; to use philosophy in dialog with theology to attempt to answer questions (Schleiermacher and Tillich, for example). So I study philosophy more than most other students in religious studies and have a great interest in Christian and Jewish philosophical theologians because even if they are Christian and Jewish and speak within a Judeo-Christian context, the methodologies of philosophical theologians often help me find a way to study theology beyond the spheres of their religions.
I guess another large problem is that most people don't even really understand what academic philosophy really is and think that philosophy is simply an act of "thinking deeply" or something like that. Philosophy and just "thinking" aren't the same. Philosophy is a rigorous and systematic discipline.
|
So are you deist or atheist? agnostic?
|
I'm not really sure if I fit under the term deist, because I didn't come to the belief in god rationally, nor do I think one can come to a determination that the universe was created by a god in a rational manner. I have similarities with deists in that I do believe in God without having my belief rooted in scripture or doctrine. I am agnostic in the sense that I believe that the question of the existence of God isn't something that can be answered, and I personally believe that all arguments for the existence of God are invalid.
As I am, I don't think a label matters much right now. I do have a problem with explaining my position easily though, but that's not really a personal or important issue for me.
|
You didn't come to a belief in God rationally. So you do believe in God. Wat.
|
On March 15 2011 12:51 GeneralissimoNero wrote:
You didn't come to a belief in God rationally. So you do believe in God. Wat.
Not everything someone believes in can be proved or purely rational. Things like personal religion and spirituality often cannot be explained too well and depend more on one's personal view on the world (accumulated through life/experience and whatnot).
|
Read some Kierkegaard and you might understand. It's late in the night now and I don't really have the energy to explain. I don't believe the act of faith is in any way a rational act. In fact, I think all the attempts to rationalize faith is misguided. Oh, fuckit. I'd have to explain why I don't think God is a being either, and I don't want to talk about Nietzsche and Heidegger too.
Lets just say tldr; I think faith is subjective and and wholly nonrational. I think trying to argue that God exists through rationality is invalid and misguided, etc.
Maybe another day.
edit: actually, if you really want, try looking up Jean-Luc Marion. He's an eminent Catholic philosopher theologian that was influenced by and was a student to one of the main philosophers I study right now. I haven't read him myself but I know he continues on the topic of God and being that Levinas and Derrida engaged with before him. If his writing is anything like Levinas and Derrida though, you might not understand what he's talking about unless you familiarize yourself with phenomenology... and the languages in philosophy aren't gentle to the uninitiated.
edit 2: actually, forget it. you might not really understand the impact of what him and his predecessors are doing unless you understand the full context of it. Start with Tillich and the question of being (and Being) in phenomenology and Existentialism. Tillich is a good place to start for a Christian in looking into these topics. Then go look at Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and then just keep moving around.
|
In the mean time, I have a question for you. How do you feel about religion?
I feel that it boils down to where someone is born if you don't become atheist. (And even being an atheist depends on how much your parents forced religion on you) It doesn't even seem like a choice because you're never exposed to other religions at an early age to decide which one is for you, if any at all. For example, I live in an area that is predominately Roman Catholic. People don't know jackshit about any other religion, yet they still claim it is their choice that they chose to be Catholic. It certainly is, but it is a close-minded decision for sure.
So do you think if you were raised in a different country (India perhaps) with basically the same type of parents, but they taught you Hindu traditions instead of Christian traditions, would you still be Christian? With that in mind, doesn't it seem like religion isn't really a choice, but more of luck as in where you were born?
|
How do you feel about the fact that the pope tells people that condoms INCREASE the risk of spreading the HIV virus?
Thus killing millions and millions(mainly africans)
|
On March 15 2011 07:38 Enervate wrote:
I am a Christian and I also believe in God. It's interesting to me how quickly people who think they are so intelligent are so dismissive of the existence of god. "I believe in science" is always a classic argument. There is actually no science that contradicts the existence of god. I'm talking about the mere existence of god, not any specific religions or whatever. I don't mind if people have a different view on god from me. (I also have nothing against you if you don't believe in god. People are free to come to their own conclusions.) People just seem to think that belief in god directly correlates with stupidity, and the smart people like to pretend they know better than others.
First, an argument against belief in god is burden of proof. People always say prove it or god doesn't exist. This argument isn't particularly effective in my opinion because I can't prove anyone's existence besides my own. I can't actually prove you exist, or anything exists besides myself, but the fact that I think, and that I think about these things, is enough to tell me they exist and justify my beliefs in their existence from a logical standpoint.
Basically, how could I think up something that does not exist if I exist? Here I will preemptively argue against stuff like unicorns by saying they are clearly grounded in reality, like from a horse or whatever.
The second argument I hear is this: why does god let so much pain and suffering occur? Because ultimately, life is finite while heaven is infinite. So let's look at this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's say suffering in this world = -5000 units of pleasure. Now pleasure in heaven = infinity. Infinity-5000=infinity. Also, the fact that people have experienced suffering during life allows them to recognize happiness and bliss.
But how do you know heaven exists? Well, I don't pretend like there is a physical place up in the sky where we go to chill on clouds after we die. But I can easily believe that the state of our mind is permanent when we die. Clearly, we won't be experiencing new things after we die. If I am happy with my life when I die, then I will be in heaven. This can be simplified to if I did good things, I will be in heaven. And everyone I know, everything I did, will be forever preserved as such.
Now, you might argue that you could be happy when you die even without believing in god. But how can you? You will always want to live longer if you don't believe there is anything for you after death. You can't ever be satisfied with your life. You might come to the conclusion that you can't have any more of life, and come to terms with said conclusion, but you would still readily accept life over death if you had the opportunity, and therefore you can't be satisfied. Therefore, you won't be truly happy with the fact that you are dying, and therefore you won't be in heaven.
Life is so short. Basically, I wish people would believe that life is not meaningless or trivial, which it would be if nothing existed permanently, god.
I don't have time to pick this apart exhaustively, but I'll just say that it's very questionable to me to assert that the burden of proof isnt on the believer only because of Descartes' very very questionable premises.
edit: also, 100% with the guy below the guy below me.
|
The burden of "proof" is on the believer but no such proof can be given.
Suppose you were a normal person 2000 years back and you saw a guy named Jesus. He walked around and you witnessed him healing people and even reviving someone from the dead! Then he makes claims about the supernatural, metaphysical, and extraordinary things. Do his miracles prove the truth of his statements? How can you know you aren't just being deceived? Why do you think he could be trusted? Even in this case, ultimately rationality could not be your guide. Instead, it is more an instinct or intuition about how you think the world works.
The scientific method has had extraordinary success over the past few hundred years. Science operates on the assumption that no supernatural forces drive the world. This assumption cannot be proven but because it has been so useful it is employed for practical purposes over and over again.
Personally though, I think the success of science has made people too hasty to dismiss the supernatural. Yes, there are many contradictions in world religions and have been perversions and evil followers. I also don't buy into any of the well established religions as the final word: surely they must have been corrupted by humanity. Yet as mere humans in this grand universe, I think we should maybe be more humble. Try as we may, there is so much out there that our minds just can't rationally make sense of.
|
The OP is just full of tripe, classic liberal catholic "Christian" who picks out the parts he likes ie Heaven and decides that he knows better then the people that died for their faith.
You believe and you evangelize because you see that people have value and are worthy to be saved from eternal damnation or you are one of two things; Selfish or and Idiot.
Want the view point from an atheist? watch this on youtube Penn Teller says it best (Video)
You can claim to be a christian and not act on it but as the bible says;
Rev 3:15-16
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
The bible is truth or the insane ramblings of old men, you choose, but for all that is holy and good CHOOSE.
|
Religion when properly deployed can be one of the most useful tools in the arsenal of any aspiring leader. There is little more potent than a horde of fanatics bound to your cause by unshakable faith, gladly willing to trade their mundane existences for some nebulous rewards in the afterlife from the almighty (as conveniently interpreted by you, of course).
Yes, religion will always have its place among us. What greater force can one claim to have on his side than that of God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
