Problems With Christianity

[_huckelberry]

Seven, I think your effort to clarify your trinitarian comment is helpful. I think the modalism in the earlier comment was a distraction even if intending to point to something valuable.

I thhk what you are aiming at is the observation that God does not demand blood to forgive. God bleeds in order to forgive completely.

[Guest]

Why oh why were we not all created angels and have no pain, not make mistakes, sin.??

Jason asks this pointing at Christian tradition of angels. I might point out that though that tradition has little actual information about angels one centeral idea is that they did not all turn out well. Creating just angels may not be a very complete solution to the problem of evil.

My first thought was wondering if it mattered that I do not ever remember growing up hoping to become an angel. It doesn't seem to convey any idea that I really aspire to. Now perhaps I do not know much about the life of angels so do not wish to emulate them. Yet there is a wonderous freedom in our physical existence. Rich with possiblities pleasures challenges adventures. I do not envy angels.

Some people may suspect Christian theology of claim more knowldege than it has. On the subject of angels it generally does not claim all that much knowlege. Some comments in Aquinas angel theories made me wonder if Angels might be freedom deficient. I do not know. I do know the the elements of freedom we humans have in this troubled context are valuble to me. I believe God being of good will intends that freedom for good not ill. There is a difficult transition from freedom and childhood through confusion and the possiblity of evil to a better future. I think we must particpate in that transition or it just does not happen.

Jason points out that LDS thinking sees some elements of our freedom and the order of the universe as eternal while tradional Christianity sees both of those things as created , having a beginning.To my mind it is possible to let the diffirence there obscure the important areas in common. Human freedom is central to what we are created to be in either view.Human freedom creates problems that God foresaw but forsaw as necessary in either view. We live in a natural order that we have to learn to deal with instead of relying on magic in either view.

In traditional Christian creation God is not locked into following a preexisting natural order. Instead he creates this order. People may often fail to look at what is emplied here however. Once a natural order is decided upon by God and put into action then it has its own demands on what will happen next in time. There is a vaste complexity in that which I suspect makes it impossible for even God to plan out a best event for each of us. There are too many competing demands there are too many things working together. Even if you say God knows each of those steps it does not logically follow that all steps can be ordered to avoid conflicts. I think that would be the case even if there is no freedom of action. I think God capable of creating living beings with limited freedom of action. That introduces another layer of no controll into a system totally the product of decsions made by an all knowing God.

With LDS thinking I see part of the process of our growing to perfectio in freedom is the dealing with conflict, difficulty and evil. Non LDS christians are often put off by the seems that LDS may say sin was necessary. That seems perhaps a clumsy but well intentioned description. I am not interested in arguing it. LDS and other Christian agree that this world is a process we grow through and contains difficulties.

Are my words traditional Christianity? I refer to the Catholic Catachism, the most traditional and majority authority. I think it has an elegant simplicity on the problem.
324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God Illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by way s that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

...................
Roger, thanks for pointing out the flubbed extra phrase, I deleted it. I think because we live in time the changes we go through are our most real aspects. And we do do it.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Huck, you say some good-stuff here, I'm in this maybe not so good???:

...I do know the the elements of freedom we humans have in this troubled context are valuble to me. I believe God being of good will That phrase I really like! Never heard of "The Good-will God", only the God of Love, or Vengence...intends that freedom for good not ill. More good thinking!There is a difficult transition from freedom and childhood through confusion and the possiblity of evil to a better future. I think we must particpate in that transition or it just does not happen. I do not thing it happens. Not sure of your conclusion?? I think it happens as humans become more humane and accept their responsibility of making "it happen!"

Jason points out that LDS thinking sees some elements of our freedom and the order of the universe as eternal while tradional Christianity sees both of those things as created , having a beginning.To my mind it is possible to let the diffirence there obscure the important areas in common.Another good truism that we tend to ignore as we defend our "right" whether correct onr not.. Human freedom is central to what we are created to be in either view.Human freedom creates problems that God foresaw but forsaw as necessary in either view. That statement implies the human-form all wise mythological "God", that I do not think ever existed... We live in a natural order that we have to learn to deal with instead of relying on magic in either view. Absolutely true IMSCO...

In traditional Christian creation God is not locked into following a preexisting natural order. Instead he creates this order. People may often fail to look at what is emplied here however. Once a natural order is decided upon by God and put into action then it has its own demands on what will happen next in time. Cause & effect consistancy, can't be escaped, even by the Magic-god... ... There are too many competing demands there are too many things working together. ... That introduces another layer of no controll into a system totally controlled by laws-of-nature, only a few of which we know, and fewer that we can use...

With LDS thinking I see part of the process of our growing to perfectio in freedom is the dealing with conflict, difficulty and evil. Non LDS christians are often put off by the seems that LDS may say sin was necessary. Sins/mistakes are simply the consequence of ignorance and/or indifference..."...when we know better..." That seems perhaps a clumsy but well intentioned description. I am not interested in arguing it. LDS and other Christian agree that this world is a process we grow through and contains difficulties.

Are my words traditional Christianity? I refer to the Catholic Catachism, the most traditional and majority authority. I think it has an elegant simplicity on the problem.
324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God Illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by way s that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
Catholic mysteries have long spanned gulfs of ignorance. That the mysteries have too often fenced off truth has had too many sad, sick and sorry consequences...

Thanks for your posts...Warm regards, Roger
*
*

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, you said;

I'm not sure why it's evil.......I mean, if you think about it, killing someone to eat them makes a lot more sense then killing them over a mate, for personal slights, to establish authority, or most other reasons. At least there's a reason for it.

I admit I do feel a natural repugnance to cannibalism (similar to the one I feel for homosexuality) but I've been assured that my repugnance to homosexuality is not rational and should be ignored so I would like to see a rational reasoning for why cannibalism is bad.

I don't know Bro, but I often get a smile out of your responses. You do, in yer own quirky way, make more sense than some others here... Cannalbalism has long been the means of others surviving. The Donner Party comes to mind...

And IF, as my Dad long ago directed, "don't kill anything you don't intend to eat." was a military edict, the Killing-Fields of the distant and current times would probably be less vast than they have been...

Your equating cannalbalism to homophobia may not be far off centre either. Both practices would best be things of the past. Then folks would have no fear of being eaten or beaten...
Roger
*
*

I was equating cannibalism to homosexuality not homophobia. Other then that, thanks.

[_Seven]

Hello KimberlyAnn and all Here,

I now lean towards Christian Universalism in my beliefs. Christian Universalism does Not believe in a literal eternal hell. I Consider Myself a Christian still, However I don't really believe in a literal eternal hell. I do lean towards Christian Universalism in my beliefs.

Me too. :)

[_Jason Bourne]

Seven, I think your effort to clarify your trinitarian comment is helpful. I think the modalism in the earlier comment was a distraction even if intending to point to something valuable.

I thhk what you are aiming at is the observation that God does not demand blood to forgive. God bleeds in order to forgive completely.

The God of Christianity does demand blood for payment of sin. My comment on modalism was not meant to distract but to clarify.

Nobody has even touched on my question.

Why does the omnipotent perfect God of Christianity require blood in order to forgive sin?

[Guest]

Jason I am unsure why you feel so sure of the God demanding blood thing. After all it is God who bleed. You are being very certain about something with very shaky foundation. Are you referring to some scriptural view? what? Are you referring to some theological tradtion? Where?

Demanded blood from whom for heaven sakes? And who was it who demanded Jesus blood? It was sinners not God.

It seems futile to try and explain why God demands blood when everythng I know and think says this is not the case.
................
I may be failing to not sound argumentative. I am trying to observe that my own view is not just pulled from a hat. I have read good chuncks of traditonal Christian theology. there is some variety of views of how the atonement functions. It is to an extent an open question. Anselms payment theory has had a large place for the past 600 years. It is the value in Jesus divinity suffering for us which pays toward the demands of abstract justice in that theory. God undergoes that suffering in Jesus for us as a gift to us. (the words of institution of the new and everlasting covent is this is my blood shed for you.) Blood is life we share with Jesus, a touch point where we love and forgive as we have been loved and forgiven.
.......................
My computer is showing a where would Jesus shop question in my post. I am a bit offended. If he was living now I would guess Home Depot, Safeway, the corner gas and grocery. perhaps Kmart perhaps another store in the neighborhood.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Roger, I corrected the garbled line you pointed out in my post. I have become sloppy in editing. Ill plead limited time.

I think we do accomplish change. In fact because we exist in time I think it is the changes we do which are our most real dimension.

You and I seem to have very different associations with the word mystery. I think of mystery as an invitation to explore and learn.Mystery is an invitation to adventury and romance.

Now if one thought of mystery as sealed out of reach or hidden in untouchable places it would be hard to have positive associations. I would veiw such mystery as more like the wizard of oz if not a cover for something worse. You speak as though that is the kind of mystery the word means to you.

I can think of tmes Christian history suffered from people thinking they know more than they do. That is to my mind a falure to respect mystery. Mystery understands we all share ignorance and the hope to illuminate.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Jason, you asked:

[quote]
[Why does the omnipotent perfect God of Christianity require blood in order to forgive sin?
/quote]

I will attempt to answer, but first... Do I correctly sense facetiousness in your query?
Roger
*
*

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Huck, you said:

You and I seem to have very different associations with the word mystery. I think of mystery as an invitation to explore and learn.Mystery is an invitation to adventury and romance.

Now if one thought of mystery as sealed out of reach or hidden in untouchable places it would be hard to have positive associations. I would veiw such mystery as more like the wizard of oz if not a cover for something worse. You speak as though that is the kind of mystery the word means to you.

According to my Franklin electronic Dictionary&Thesaurus: Mystery:
1. religious truth known by revelation alone.
2. something not understood, or beyond understanding.
3. enigmatic quality or character
4.work of fiction dealing with the solution of a mysterious crime...
a perplexing thing...

This is my general understanding of "mystery" as I think it used by ecclesiasts of the past to quell questions. Especially of youth and of other enquiring minds. Not as readily accepted today--by some, that is...

Seems to me being on a quest, seeking adventure, (romance :-) exploration, discovery, etc. might be probing the mysterious and unknown... But, I don't think that has generally been encouraged by Christian authoritarian types. Do you?
Roger
*
*