True believing Christians: will you allow me to challenge and probe your beliefs?

Great Debates
1

Are there any Christian dopers who ***genuinely believe ***in basic Christian teaching without reservation?

By this I mean you genuinely believe:

  1. A sentient and all-powerful Creator created all life on earth (not necessarily that it did so in a week or 6,000 years, just that life was created by a Creator, even if the Creator did so via evolution over hundreds of millions of years).

  2. Human beings are the Creator’s “favorite” creations, and are patterned on the Creator in some way, even if that way is merely that human beings are self-aware, intelligent, and capable of creating things.

  3. There is a kind of blissful state available after death which is designed as a reward by the Creator, allows reuniting with one’s loved ones, and lasts for infinity.

  4. The blissful post-death state is not automatic, but must be earned. (See below)

  5. The Creator “created” a “son” in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, (immaculate conception and virgin birth optional) whose job was to teach what the Creator wanted, to perform some basic miracles, then to die a martyr and rise from the dead to ascend to a place beside the Creator. The purpose of this was to act as a surrogate sufferer for the sins of others.

  6. The blissful post-death state is only available to the people who accept that Jesus lived and died and acted as a surrogate “sufferer” for the sins committed by the believer in question, and that is the only way - no others are allowed the blissful post-death experience. (Whether that means eternally nothingness or active suffering in a hell-like state is again optional for the purposes of this thread.)

If you do believe as I’ve outlined, are you willing to discuss how you believe this and how you reconcile things in your mind that might otherwise cause you to doubt the truth of this? I ask because I know from experience that lots of people are not willing to discuss it in depth and end up in a sort of default “I just have faith” position that is fine as far as it goes for you, but not very enlightening for me.

But if you have some way of making logical in your own mind the things that appear illogical to others, I’d love to understand better what your thinking process is.

My biggest questions are these:

  1. Where did the Creator come from? (It/He “just always is/was” is understood to be the default answer for such mystery, you needn’t repeat it here. I’m just hoping for a different answer. Oh, and yes, I’m hip to Mormon theology which leads to the same question, it just goes back further, through more layers of Creators)

  2. What is the fate of people who have never had the opportunity to be exposed to the option of believing? There are millions of them. Is there any answer for them not having the same options as others?

  3. What about people who simply cannot believe? Since the Creator is supposed to be able to see into our minds, it’s a given that he/she/it knows that for some people, believe is not possible. Faith is not possible, and any attempt to “act as if” would be a lie that the Creator would see, so there would be no point. Do such people just die and go dark, or do they suffer in hell (depending on your belief about the non-saved afterlife experience).

  4. If the answers to 2 & 3 amount to “shit outta luck”, how do you feel about that? Does it seem fair or reasonable to you? Does it matter?
    Thank you in advance.

2

They main problem with this is that “discuss with me” is usually code for “allow me to demean you and your faith”; combined with “no, I can’t prove it, that’s why it’s falled faith”.

3

Well that, and the fact that it has been done here over and over and over and over and over and over.

4

Stoid, which Christian denominations believe all of those things the way that you described them?

5

I don’t believe the word “denomination” appeared in the OP.

6

I might try to participate in this thread, and give at least some of your questions a shot, but if you really want Christianity made logical, you might be better off reading some theology (something along the lines of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, or a more modern counterpart).

7

In regard to #4, few if any Christians believe that salvation is earned. It’s generally understood to be a free gift of God (grace). See Ephesians chapter 2. In fact, the idea that we are capable in any way of contributing to our own salvation is a heresy called Pelagianism.

8

I agree.

9

I think denomination is an interesting question. AFAIK, many major denominations don’t believe #6 (even the RCC doesn’t teach that anymore), and I’m guessing Stoid’s not going to find a lot of people around the SDMB who believe it, so I’m not sure who she’s going to have the conversation with.

10

Please elaborate on this point. It’s my understanding that Christians reckon that a belief in and acceptance of Jesus as the savior is necessary for salvation. Is it your argument that Christians believe everyone reaches heaven no matter what?

11

I think that you will find very few people who will claim to be Christians and who believe in the “basic Christian beliefs” as you describe them. Some examples:

Point 5 describes a Christology that very few Christians I’m aware of adhere to. It certainly doesn’t sound Nicene.

Point 6 describes a view of salvation that is somewhat more common, but as far as I know is a minority view among American Christians today (It is not the teaching of most major organized Churches). Furthermore, most who believe in that would have an especially nasty reaction to your point 4, where they would stridently object to the idea that the “post-death blissful state” can be “earned,” and those who would disagree with point 6 might also seek a clarification on what you mean by the post death blissful state being a “reward” and on humanity being “the Creator’s favorite.”

I’m just saying, there are troubles to your definitions that seem to make it unnecessarily complicated to get answers to your questions. Would you consider amending your query to include Christians who would, say, endorse the Nicene Creed? Or if you want to focus on those that believe especially in Point 6, since that seems to be the limiting factor in your big questions, maybe just limit the question to Christians that believe in that, without the other stuff.

12

Will you also elaborate on this comment? Every person I have met who calls themself a Christian thinks that belief in and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the behalf of humanity is necessary for salvation. It’s my understanding that this is why Christian denominations are so evangelical - they believe that by their evangelism, they are literally helping people avoid eternal suffering.

13

That was my point, I think it depends on what flavor of Christian you’re talking about. Not all denominations believe this, and not all a particularly evangelical, for that matter. Sure, there are denominations that take a hard line on it, but the more liberal denominations don’t as far as I know. The RCC loosened up on it during Vatican II, and they’ve had a lot of statements regarding this issue since then, most of which I believe seem to say that if people don’t know Christ through no fault of their own, then the Church assumes they have a chance at salvation.

14

Posting to subscribe and to ask the following:

I thought that one of the reasons for the original Lutheran schism was a disagreement that salvation by works (Catholic) is actually sufficient, and that Luther believed that faith and acceptance as Christ as your personal savior was required. I further understood that recently (within the last 10 or 15 years), the Catholic church basically agreed that faith in Christ is required, removing one of the big differences between Catholics and, say, Anglicans.

Anyway, I’m hoping this thread can stay positive because I’m interested in the questions posted by the OP as well. There are some very knowledgeable Catholics on this board who should be able to come up with more definitive answers according to Catholic doctrine. Other denominations may be trickier because there isn’t a strict hierarchy (as I understand it).

15

This is a very… erratic version of Christian belief. of course, Christians do hope to be reuinioted with our loved ones - but that’s their choice, not ours. Anyone can deny the divine and prefer Hell.

While I won’t get into this as it suffices for now, the Son IS the Father. God is more than one person, which is not something we humans are very familiar with. He’s not subject to our rules, and is capable of loving himself as himself and as a seperate person, too. The Son goes before the Father always, and they are formed by their respective positions.

Why is another question. The Father is utterly superhuman: on those few occaisions he made himself known, it was in the form of something humans couldn’t even understand. The Son is a specific, named human being: Jeshua bar Joseph. The Holy Spirit is even harder to understand, and seems almost maternal. And really, there’s no answer other than God chooses it to be so. It’s not something we understand, either, but we are led inexorably towards it.

Uhh… what? I don’t think you know all that much about Christian theology, even on a surface level, if you think that’s what any mainstream, or even most weird minority, denominitions think.

If you do believe as I’ve outlined, are you willing to discuss how you believe this and how you reconcile things in your mind that might otherwise cause you to doubt the truth of this? I ask because I know from experience that lots of people are not willing to discuss it in depth and end up in a sort of default “I just have faith” position that is fine as far as it goes for you, but not very enlightening for me.

But if you have some way of making logical in your own mind the things that appear illogical to others, I’d love to understand better what your thinking process is.

My biggest questions are these:

God IS. He existed before time and needs no “origin”. We onyl have a specific origin because he creted the concept of time and progression which enable that existence.

Of course. They are ultimately subject to the same tests as all of us. Good was around long before the Christian religion. Christians have a somewhat more direct route to being and getting goodness, because we know who and what we worship.

First off, Faith is not believing something you don’t honestly think is true. And indeed, it would be better to honestly doubt than dishonestly worship. Faith is about keeping our real selves through the episodes of doubt which always plague all humans.

However, whether you believe or not, you are still subject to the same test and demands from the divine. If you cannot keep the Sacraments, you can keep the Commandments.

You know, you’re actually questioning the beliefs a tiny, and rather poorly-educated, minority of Christians here.

16

I’d be interested in that, too, RitterSport, as theology isn’t my strong suit by any means.

Either way, though, if Stoid wants to have a rousing discussion on the SDMB where people who believe that only Christians go to heaven defend that belief, I think she’s going to be disappointed, regardless of denominational teaching.

17

Yes and no. Mostly no, but a little yes.

In a manner of speaking, it was always a matter of language. Few, if any Christians ever subscribed to the idea that faith is irrelevant. But the Church is what you’d call a “hands-on” bunch. As far as we’re concerned, a faith which does nothing is, well, not a faith. We’d rather have a man who didn’t entirely believe, but went about and acted as if he did because he thought it right. The belief will take care of itself, if not now, then in death when all illusions (including the weakness of human reason and the deceptions of Satan) are stripped away.

The theological disagreement with Luther was that it essentially denied the human being’s active alignment with God. We Catholics say that you have to actually act for God: you’re a soldier on his side, now, so get crackin’ recruit! Today, we’d all mostly say it’s a problem with communication. Theologically, there was really never any disagreement with the Anglicans, except over whether the church was headed by the King of England or the Pope. Given that national churches have thankfully faded, and Monarchs don’t have such an interest, the root of the disagreement has gone away.

Arguments with Presbyterians and maybe Mormons probably go deepest with Catholics.

(And Luther was kind of a dick, even though he wasn’t exactly a bad theologian. I’ve actually heard about people (whose names I won’t repeat) who start yelling and arguing with Luther. He’s so combative that he sparks personal arguments after death.)

18

I believe (please correct me if I’m mistaken) that what I describe forms the core of Christianity: God made everything, sent His son to earth to wash the sins of the faithful and allow them to ascend to Heaven to be with God.

It’s well established that the particulars and details of each faith differ, hence the fact that there are different Christian denominations to begin with. But I’ve never heard of a Christian denomination that didn’t believe these basics - I thought that’s what “Christian” means: Jesus Christ is your Savior.

19

What I want to understand is how modern Christians experience and think about their beliefs in the modern world.

20

But isn’t the grace given only to those who believe? That is the means of “earning” - believing. I’ve never heard anyone who identified as a Christian say that everyone, believer or not, is saved - is that what you mean?