#theology

I think that there’s initially nothing wrong with teaching religious teachings at public schools but it would likely become a problem if all religions were being taught in schools on a regular basis, since differences in religious beliefs can cause arguments and hostility between the students (especially if students aren’t open minded or mature enough to be ok with the differences). I went to a public school and our school didn’t even have religious teachings but I still remember the time when one of my peers started arguing with me because he knew I was a Muslim. He tried to tell me the “right” things to believe and he was getting mad at me for the fact that I have/had different religious beliefs than him so the teacher told him to sit in the hallway. I think that because middle school and high school students aren’t adults yet, there would be a higher chance of discrimination and hostility between the students who have different religious beliefs. For this reason, I believe it’s better for religions to be taught in college (which is why the field of theology exists).

View more

confessions of corruption in the Bible have been in existence since ancient church fathers
Some examples can be given, although this is not scientifically so important if the corruption in the book is proven by evidences
And when I said no one knows when, I meant no one knows when "exactly", but the distortion occurred early, and the original manuscripts are lost, and this is agreed upon among the critics of theology even though they are Christians.(it's not just muslims who say that !)
My fellow Stephen ..Let me bring the idea closer with an easy example:
When you find in the book of genesis that the age of mankind is shortly before Christ, while we know with certainty that this is wrong
Do you keep insisting that this is the revelation of God?
what if I bring to you a text in a book of Bible , which is totally contradictory with other text in the same Bible?
How if I came to you with thousands of examples similar to that

View more

I doubt you are a christian. Either you are an immature one,either you are not a christian. The Holy Spirit will convince you of your sin if you are a christian.

---

A relationship with God is more important than giving very good answer. There are people out there who know a lot of answers and don't give "lackluster" answers as you say,but they are not christians as they call themselves. They will say "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'" and Jesus will tell them " I never knew you" .

---

And I told you you read only my English answers which are not as good as the Romanian ones.

---

Btw,people who use a familiar language to make even the fool understand are more valued than people who try to speak in difficult words and make almost nobody understand.

---

Every christian will have a chance to spread the good news and a little bit of what the Bible says. Even a little bit. You basically are telling me to shut up which contradicts the Bible.

---

Go and study theology but it is all in vain if you don't have God in your heart. Did the apostles go to theology? No,they had a relationship with God. Let's not forget how immature they were at the beginning. But they growed because God's Spirit was in them and they had a sincere relationship with God.

---

I will never give up on this account and I will always tell people about Jesus!!

---

And thanks for making me stupid :) I'm glad you are smart at least. So sad this won't matter when you'll meet Jesus

View more

1. 90% of my answers are in Romanian. So of course there won't be a lot of good answers in english .
2. " us" who? Every christian should spread the good news. What do you have against me if I chose to share the good news online?
3. Nobody has all the answers. I answer how I can.
4. does it matter if someone have a lot of diplomas if their relationship with God is not good? Someone can have a lot of diplomas and study of theology behind,if they don't have a sincere relationship with God,it's not right.
5. Please leave behind this pride and this air of superiority. It's not good for a christian ;)
6. I am studying my bible. I am a christian for almost 2 years. Of course,I have a lot to learn. And so do you and so do all the christians. Because a christian is constantly growing.

---

Everybody will be given a chance to share the Gospel. No matter if you are a theology teacher or a 18 years old teenager.

View more

A "definition poem?" I don't think I have the talents you think I have - poetry's a bit out of my wheelhouse.

---

Insanity's a tricky thing to define in the first place, for good reason - anything that gets too specific is going to be controversial. In certain locations and times in history, anything from the idea that the earth revolves around the sun to the concept that women ought to be able to vote to the notion that a certain theology might not be the truth would all be widely regarded as abject insanity.

---

Certainly today, there are ideas that you or I or most anyone would see as insanity that people in the distant future will pity us for not understanding yet. We have to be careful with our definitions of insanity for that reason, at least when it comes to particular ideas or mindsets: maybe we're correctly identifying someone suffering from extreme mental illness, or maybe we're just part of the mob condemning the next Galileo (or maybe it's a combination of the two - historical figures like Isaac Newton and Linus Pauling come to mind, whose minds contained both brilliant ideas ahead of their times, and also unchecked lunacy).

---

If I had to pin down a definition, I'd base it on the capability of a person to behave and speak and reason in a way that fits the norms of the society they're in (emphasis on the capability, and not necessarily the constant willingness). A person who sees things that aren't real and can't tell the difference, or who suffers from uncontrollable paranoia that changes their behavior is having problems with their sanity. A person who has ideas ahead of their time our outside of their culture understands perfectly well how to play along - they may just be willing to take risks they understand to advocate for ideas they think are worth it.

View more

All natural theology points to theism. Even the TERM "polytheism" was invented by a Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, as an OXYMORON—the Greek philosophers, including Heracleitus, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras, and of course Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and all THEIR students, and already worked out that "gods," plural, makes NO SENSE. But not all the Greeks were satisfied with an abstract "God of the philosophers"—they wanted the idea of a living God. And basically, Philo was telling them, "Hey, you Greeks have ALMOST worked it out, except you have the philosophers over here making God into an abstract principle like The Good or The One, and you have all these entertaining but silly myths about gods and heroes—what you need is one of few things you Greeks haven't been able to work out adequately, the correct conception of the one God that IS the Good and the One—a conception which, by the way, we Jews HAVE. It's kind of our thing. Mostly because this God chose us precisely to GIVE THE WORLD THIS IDEA."

View more

"...up where you left off, hitting it off again with everyone. Perhaps this is the Law of Mirrors in action :) Your work sounds incredible! How exactly did you find it? Do you have any pets, I don't think you do, why is that? Do you have a partner? I can only imagine you as independent. Not sure why."

---

Oh, crap, there's a lot to this - I'm in a novel-writing mood even with the short questions today. Well, I'll answer the easy ones first: no pets, but I want corgis (I live alone and spend a lot of time working and travelling, so I don't think it'd be fair to have dogs that I just abandon all the time). I've got a relationship that's lasted a while, but I don't like some major things about it, so I'm likely going to either make some major changes or just break it off sometime in the near future. (If she wasn't very emotionally attached or I was more okay with hurting people, it likely wouldn't have lasted this long.)

---

As for how I found my job. I could ramble for hours about that whole thing. I'll break it into chapters:
-I went to college thinking I was going to be a physicist (physics is awesome!)
-I did some work-study tutoring physics students and running labs and recitations for a physics prof in exchange for tuition (holy crap college is expensive!)
-I discovered that most people who have trouble with physics are really just having trouble with math. I started tutoring math, and added a math major.
-I discovered that learning how people learn is fascinating, and that I was enjoying my time tutoring more than my time doing what I expected my actual job to be. I finished the math and physics undergrad degrees, but switched by postgrad focus to education.
-I became a math and physics teacher. Woo!
-I discovered that most people have trouble with math because a lot of curricula fundamentally prioritize performance on specific types of tests over comprehension and usability whenever those things don't overlap.
-I did some research to reform my own practice, and I found that a LOT of other people had the same realization, and we're actually in the midst of something of a legislative movement around it.
-I took the lead on these sorts of changes with my school, and then my district, and then some other districts, and eventually got the notice of some people who specialize in helping lots of schools through these kinds of changes.
-I signed on, but kept a foot in the classroom (both at the high school and college level), because I didn't like the idea of telling people what to do without being in the trenches alongside them. And that's what I'm doing now!

---

Well, crap. That'll show you what happens when you ask me to talk about myself :)

View more

All religions are up for variety of interpretations. You can see differences in how Buddhism evolved and embraced by local culture in the comparison of Bhutan, Myanmar, PRC, Nepal, and even Indonesian Buddhists.

---

From that sporadic settlements of Buddhist teachers, they might have used different approaches and perception in describing the concept of Divinity. The dynamics of society played a big role just as much, that's why the Buddhists religious leaders allowed such treatment to the Rohingyan in Myanmar, because after all he is also part of the society in the region.

---

The term "god's wills it!" Proven to be dangerous as hell. I mean, it could be used by people to "accept" their situation and be grateful for who they are.
"Why are you poor?"
"It's okay, god's wills it if i were gonna be rich I have to work."
It provides wishful and hopeful framework thinking. While the interpretation of that of what god's wills/not at all often tied to the society in general. The kind of Justification was used during the Crusade by the church by accumulating supporters for such agenda through aggression because that's god's wills. The whole "giving your other cheeks, love thy neighbor, etc." suddenly inapplicable due to what the people "demand" or interpreted in that context.

---

In islam, more less it's similar. How Islam's technicalities have operated here in Indonesia under the power of majority and the middle class.

---

Religions are all up for humans interpretations. That's why we have theology classes at uni. Because these interpretations are still driven by either agent and structure, both agent and structure, or through the relations of agent and structure.

View more

Hahaha brah, that was from a paper that I wrote for my upper theology professor who happens to be a Catholic reverend. And he was so impressed with my whole thesis and reasoning and gave me an A for my paper. Did you even read how I argued for my answer???

---

My interpretation was based on Paul's words. If you read the Bible, Jesus Himself had never said anything about homosexuality.

---

Inget, Alkitab itu terbuka untuk berbagai interpretasi. Makanya interpretasi lo bisa beda dengan interpretasi gw. Tapi, bentuk interpretasi apa pun yang kita berdua gunakan, ga boleh bertentangan dngan misi Alkitab untuk memberikan panduan bagi kemanusiaan yg didasarkan pda CINTA & PENGERTIAN untuk semua umat manusia.

---

I was NOT trying to compromise with a sin. Kenapa kalo orang yang cuman mau mencintai orang lain sesama jenis itu dosa banget? Love is love. Tindakan seksual eksploitatif yg ditandai dengan nafsu yg berlebihan itu DOSA. Tindakan homoseksual yg penuh kasih sayang dan konsensual itu TIDAK. Stop being so prejudiced and hateful, that is not what God wants from all of us. He wants us to be loving, forgiving, and accepting of all human beings.

---

I am not trying to change His words to what I want to hear. I'm just stating the facts based on my research of the historical and social context in which the Bible was written. I mean slavery was condoned by the Bible.

---

Look at 1 Peter 2:18:
"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

---

During slavery, slaves were treated so poorly, discriminated against, hated against, because slave masters used the Bible as a reference. Look at us now, do we still condone slavery? NO, slavery is disgusting and tragic.

---

My point is, as we grow as a society, we need to keep an open mind and to critically analyze and formulate new interpretations of the Bible that fits the modern context of humanity so that we can understand each other more, have empathy towards others and just be loving and inclusive. Because we're all God's children, we're put on this earth to always love or at least try to love and take care of each other.

---

I understand where you're coming from and you might not accept my truth too, but please, just try to keep an open mind. Please, look around, the world is changing and it's becoming a disaster with all the hate spreading like a virus, God needs all of us to just love each other. Please do not engage in moral blindness.

View more

I know you would like to discredit the accomplishment of sewing an entire skirt from scratch, but I'd like to see you try. It's may not be intellectually challenging, but it certainly tests your dexterity and patience.

---

You should know by now that I'm at a bible college, so the emphasis here is not on academics, it's on practical life skills and personal ministry. That isn't to say that my classes aren't hard, because some still are. I'm currently in a class called Systematic Theology III and one of my textbooks is over 1200 pages. The other is only 300, but the font is tiny and the line spacing is almost nonexistent and each page contains two columns of near incomprehensible verbosity, which I have to take quizzes on each week. It is by no means an easy class.

---

Besides, I was more referring to highschool, when I had a much greater selection of classes. I piled up on science (Biology, Physical Science, Chemistry, Physics, Marine Science, Forensic Science, Anatomy & Physiology, and Astronomy) and math (both Algebra I & II, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Precalculus). I also took Psychology and two years of French. Had my school possessed the curriculum for it, I would've taken four. I was attracted to Programming and Intro to Law as well, but I hated the teachers, so I decided not to. My point remains that I have a desire to learn anything and everything, no matter how "challenging" people tell me it is.

View more

Ngga keren kok beneran, like they said "tau semakin banyak dituntut lebih banyak" ?
Kayak misal visit ke mana or lagi bday temen ato acara keluarga, udah aku ditunjuk suruh doa. Lalu bingung sama ayat ato ada pendeta bilang apa, aku yg diajak berdebat ???
Lalu misal aku ngamuk ato apa katanya percuma sekolah teologi #sayajugamanusiataklepasdaridosa
•••
Aku bljr di City Harvest School Of Theology (SOT) Singapore :)
6 bulan karena program advance in theology nya cm 6 bulan. Rutin senin-jumat, jam 8.30 am - 1 pm (kebetulan pas kuliah aku juga uda bulan trakir sih, sisa final exams sama bikin FYP aja jadi bisa ikut kelas teologi)
Ada ujiannya juga dll.
Susah tiap exams! Bayangin pilihan a-d semuanya bener!! Harus bener2 belajar n tau ayat. Uda gt kalo ujian preaching, rasanya pengen drop out aja hahaha ? Tapi fun banget. Muridnya dari seluruh dunia, temennya jadi buanyak, dannn ya jadi lebih ngerti lagi sama isi alkitab, dan jadi merasa super beruntung tau Tuhannya luar biasa banget

View more

Cara, eu tenho cá minhas opiniões. E eu gosto muito do Eckhart e, como eu disse, leio-o como talvez um dos maiores místicos ocidentais. Mas segundo a referida Bula Papal, que é autoridade para católicos a explicação é a seguinte:

---

"We are indeed sad to report that in these days someone by the name of Eckhart from Germany, a doctor of sacred theology (as is said) and a professor of the order of Preachers, wished to know more than he should, and not in accordance with sobriety and the measure of faith, because he turned his ear from the truth and followed fables.

---

The man was led astray by that Father of Lies who often turns himself into an angel of light in order to replace the light of truth with a dark and gloomy cloud of the senses, and he sowed thorns and obstacles contrary to the very clear truth of faith in the field of the Church and worked to produce harmful thistles and poisonous thornbushes. He presented many things as dogma that were designed to cloud the true faith in the hearts of many, things which he put forth especially before the uneducated crowd in his sermons and that he also admitted into his writings."

---

Ou seja, diz que a origem são as fábulas e o demônio.

View more

Oh God.

---

I never said "there is no such thing as metaphor". In fact, I would be the happiest person alive if everyone started taking the holy texts metaphorically. But unfortunately, its not the case. And in case you don't know it, which I am sure you don't, reformist voices have a very bad name among the theologians and theological scholarships. To deny that, is utter naiveté. Also, if you don't know it, which again I am sure you don't, I am a very strong proponent of the reformist movements from among within theology and stand with them in their struggles and the resistance by established schools of theology. Like I said, I would be happiest to see the doctrines of established theologians getting upturned by newer, democratized interpretations. Many of my friends and people I got to know about are actively involved in proliferating and reconciling secularism with Islam. Yes, they are throughly resisted, yes they have a very bad name among the populace. Interestingly, even in the West. The right wingers of West criticize them because according to them "No Islam cannot be reconciled" and the left wingers also criticize them because "No need for any reconciliation or reformation to start with, nothing is wrong" And between them, they stand, in a no man's land.

---

The "its not religious, its political" statement just shows where you are coming from. Westerners tend to take distinction between religion and politics for granted, but sadly, the lines are not so much clear in the later part of world. Where politics begins, and where religion ends is not a black and white matter, in my part of the world. What the westerners over look however, is that in more fundamentalist forms of religion, politics is very much the business of religion. Again, its a spot in your thinking, given the place you are coming from, which is used to of seeing politics and religion in sharp distinction, which is not neccasirily so easy to put fingers on.

---

Now, you need to understand what I am proposing here. Am I proposing "Let's not restructure or metaphosphate or drop bad parts of theology, because it can't be dropped"? NO. A Big clear No. Not even in my dreams. Am I saying "Let's not pretend bad parts don't exist and let's not sweep them under the carpet"? Yes. Definitely. If you, (I mean we, we people), want to seriously counter extremists, deconstructing their arguments is the only way, its our only hope. Now you might be wondering, "Do they even present arguments?" Yes, they do, and very strong ones. And their arguments have improved. They have become even stronger with time. But "Do we present arguments?" No. Unfortunately, we are not doing it, not as actively and strongly as they are. Reason? Partly denial, partly we are hesitant to dissect or move or discuss established schools of doctrines And they are using it, very well I would say, to the best of their advantage

---

Again I would say you have a radically different audience which is outright stupid so they can fuckof

View more

Sure, dude, whatever. All that shit. "Islamophobia" is a nod to the preceding civil rights movements in Western nations, "homophobia" & so on. It's intended to separate it from the bigotry of fascists & arch-conservatives, which is much more openly hostile & supremacist than the lighter-touch discrimination of white liberals.

---

This WAS an important distinction. Now? I honestly don't know for sure. White liberals are still a problem, very easily spooked, thus the "phobia." A very different kind of political unease to traditional "kill em all in the name of white purity hrraaoooghogo" forms of discrimination, but nevertheless a very serious problem for minorities in Western nations.

---

Is it all on the wrong end of the same sliding scale, tho? Perhaps, but bear in mind that telling white ppl they're bigots will sometimes jolt them into positive change, but will also very often bring them to self-identify w/ bigoted views. Are YOU going to murder dozens of white bigots who're laying siege to poor neighbourhoods w/ suspected Muslim populations? Because I will. & I'll ultimately fail because I'm unarmed & very small. Then what?

---

I admire the hard-line approach, I really do, but I'm a white guy. I'm not going to bear the brunt of insisting the white liberal majority are, deep down, bigots. I also don't believe it's true in a practical sense. I think white liberals are POTENTIAL bigots, & I think they're cowards who will gladly step aside for bigots if it serves their purposes, but those purposes aren't bigotry for the most part. It's just security, comfort, sameness; you know, that shit cowards need in order to thrive.

---

They're scared of Islam because they don't know shit about it, & in a lot of places Islam is the preferred theology of some very bad ppl. Bigots are keen to paint every Muslim w/ the same brush as ISIS, for example, insisting that the same strain of intolerance that motivates ISIS is contained in other interpretations of the Koran.

---

This is the same sort of lazy thinking that motivates us to lump white liberals in w/ the fascist skinheads. It lets you identify your enemies more easily, but it also multiplies them exponentially.

---

Don't believe me? Look at MRAs. They didn't just APPEAR, they were TAUGHT to be that way by feminists, offering a negative example of manhood. Yes, all men. Some men heard that & said "well alright then, I guess this is me now."

---

It makes them easier to spot, because there's suddenly a LOT more of them. You want to take a hard line, that's fine, but once you've radicalised all the white folks I hope you'll grab a trolley bar & meet me in Auburn when they come looking to cause shit for ppl, because you share in the responsibility for that outcome by insisting on this kind of hard-line conception of prejudice. So it'll be on you to help put them back in their lane.

View more

No, dude. "Post-modernity" is the movement in art, culture, politics, etc that was directly responding to Modernism. If you want to understand postmodernism, you need to look at art history, not theology or even cultural theory. Yes, postmodernism affects all these things & has shit to say about them which you may or may not like, but as an ideology it comes from art, not politics.

---

The hijab is a hat thing is LIBERALISM, the notion that all non-violent politics is essentially optional. Tolerance is the primarily-valued cultural norm. I tolerate hijabs, because they have little oppressive weight in my context. In fact, they're a symbol of victimhood, because in my country (Australia) white supremacy & Islamophobia is increasingly normalised. "Islamophobia" might be a bullshit nonsense word in your part of the world, but where I am it has very real political & safety implications for the Muslim minority.

---

THAT'S postmodernism, to some extent; the idea that a thing can (& inevitably does) have multiple meanings. In art, the ramifications of this are pretty obvious to us by now, but politically they seem to be upsetting you. I can understand that, but the dispute over postmodernism was resolved more than 20 years ago in Western academic contexts, largely by shrugging & saying "who gives a shit." Postmodernism was an 80s phenomenon.

---

I don't...necessarily ascribe to this, & perhaps neither should you, but I sort of doubt you're a Modernist, so postmodernism is unlikely to be the cause of your problems. Especially if your problems are the stuff you listed. "Anything & everything goes" is not postmodernism. "Ridiculous, dangerous, pushing back mankind, intellectually wrecked, steaming piles of ideological scum..." this is all hyperbole, a creative way to say "I don't like postmodernism."

---

"Morally meek" might be justifiable? idk, you didn't go into much detail. "Ignorance is as good as knowledge," again, is a very childish way to describe any philosophical attempt to interrogate the nature of knowledge. Epistemology is important & worthwhile, & it's bordering on ironic that you react to a movement questioning knowledge by insisting that doing so is a sign of moral weakness & intellectual failure.

---

Diversity has nothing to do w/ postmodernism, that's a complaint again about liberal ideology, or cosmopolitanism. "Bad opinions?" These are extremely weaksauce criticisms my dude.

---

None of which I mind, but seriously just read the wikipedia page about it or something. You seem clever, you could vastly improve your understanding literally in a few minutes. I'm not even saying you'll shift from your strong disdain, but the issues you've raised sound exactly like the Western moral panics about postmodern art in the 1980s. They were misguided then, & the fare of idiots mostly.

---

You can do a lot better than that w/ very little time investment, I'm certain of this. If you don't want to I completely understand, but these criticisms are ancient & just dead wrong.

View more

Hah, if only, my dear friend.
Ethics have long been a subject of debate ever since the concept of morality sprang forth.
I think, at some level, it's related to theology as well because to define good and bad, humans used "God" as an imaginary judge of what's right, what's good, and sadly, what's permitted. After the concept of a country strengthened starting from Europe, that place was taken by the law. Anything that's permitted by law is "good".
Note that the law does no efforts to condone any behavior, it just sets a limit up to what (in a democracy) the majority or (in a monarchy) the ruler considers appropriate.
You're not allowed to do some things, you're allowed to do the rest.
Then again, in reality, that only applies if you're caught doing what's illegal. If you're not, only you and accomplices, if any, determine the rightness or lack of it thereof.

---

Virtues are universal and serve as a litmus test towards the character of a human being.
Their opposites, "sins", serve as a litmus test of the other kind.
But the thing is, even with the presence of these, good and bad are relative.
Murder is bad, but you kill someone in a war, it's believed to be "justified".
Philanthropy is good, but if you steal and give, it's considered wrong.

View more

I love talking about pop culture, w/ videogames & movies being my strongest areas. I'm bad at "art," including literature. I love talking videogames & gamer culture generally, critically or otherwise, so don't hesitate to hmu about that shit whether you feel you know a lot or nothing. Internet culture is also a topic I study closely.

---

Politics I love to speak on, w/ Australian or American really being the only contexts I know much of. Whether specific "politics" politics, or just general questions about social organisation. Specifics about economics I'm not great w/, but broad economic principles & other social theory, for sure. You can also refer this sort of thing to @rmaynard85. I'm "passionate" about stuff like wealth inequality, worker's rights, & general matters of progressive interest like environmentalism, neoliberalism, "creeping fascism," & my main squeeze, feminism. We can also talk about more specific aspects of sexual politics like sex work & intersectionality. If you want motherhood-related politics (or general parenting content), I'll refer you to my sister-in-law @happyhaps.

---

Science as an ideology is a pet interest of mine, but for specific scientific inquiries I refer you guys once again to my dudes @TimMarshPhD (evolutionary psychology & general expert) & @OlympusMonds, a geologist. Both also will probably have insights about the culture of science quite different to my outsiders perspective.

---

Religion & atheism are also topics I enjoy talking about, though the specifics of theology I'm once again far from an expert in. Can check out @OttomanScribe if you want an expert on questions of Islam, but be aware he'll ruthlessly own you if you're just looking to fight. Atheism & atheist culture tho, I'm probably about as expert as you're going to get. More broadly I can also talk about general metaphysics, but once more if you want the nitty-gritty of stuff like theoretical physics you're better off trying your luck with @TimMarshPhD. My own beliefs are a loose kind of Spinozan monism, but we can talk about whatever if you're curious about getting beyond the obvious mechanics of matter, religious or otherwise.

---

More than anything, I just like trying to help ppl w/ problems they're facing of a practical nature. I'm best w/ social problems of all kinds, whether it's sex stuff or bullying or more general interpersonal difficulties. I'm no help w/ finance questions tho. You do NOT want me weighing in on budgeting questions. If you want an outsider perspective on general difficulties you're facing, especially anything too embarrassing to bring up w/ ppl you know, I can probably offer something.

---

Really tho, I'm happy to have a crack at questions about just about anything. If I really feel like I can't answer I'll just say as much. Just...be polite. Not because I mind impoliteness as such, but if I get the sense you're combative, a fight is what we'll have. If that's not what you want, definitely err on the side of sounding friendly.

View more

Haloo anoon
waduh.
berat banget nih pertanyaanmu : o
Predestinasi adalah topik yg bikin aku bergumul setahunan lebih, sampai sempat bikin stress banget.
Topik ini selalu diperdebatkan sejak awal kristen protestan muncul, sampai sekarang pun di persekutuan mahasiswa kristen di UI juga sering ribut masalah ini.
~
Pandanganku ttg predestinasi...
Aku belum mempunyai kecenderungan tertentu soal ini dek. Belum mempelajari dgn serius jg soalnya. Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian--Aku melihat ada kelebihan dan kekurangan dari ketiga pandangan itu, dan aku belum cukup ilmu utk memiliki pendirian yg tetap mengenai predestinasi. Aku akan pelajari lagi kalau sudah ada waktu (krn ini bener2 topik yg lama bgt belajarnya)
~
Akan tetapi, begini; aku percaya aku dipilih. dan aku percaya aku punya kehendak bebas (free will). Perkara seberapa besar proporsi free will-ku itu, aku tidak begitu pusingkan. Tuhan yg paling tahu kebenarannya.
Kamu tahu apa yang paling indah?
Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminianisme, bahkan Katolik pun, bisa memiliki selisih2 pendapat yang signifikan, tapi tetap bersekutu menjadi satu (oikumene). Kenapa? karena perbedaan-perbedaan yang kecil itu dapat bertemu dalam satu nama besar yang menutupi semua itu: Yesus Kristus.
~
Jujur, aku cenderung mixed theology sekarang ini. Aku mengadopsi beberapa poin calvinist, dan arminis. Aku pny seorang tmn yg calvinist bgt dan yg arminis bgt. Keduanya bestfriendku malah; tapi perbedaan kami tetep bisa disatukan dalam ibadah kok. hehe.
~
Terakhir: ayat yang menjadi acuanku setiap kali aku bingung akan topik ini--Galatia 5: 13
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another".

---

I was chosen to be free. Aku dipanggil, dipilih, untuk menjadi orang bebas. Yang lebih penting bukanlah tentang pemilihanku itu, tapi bagaimana aku menjalani kebebasanku, supaya aku menggunakannya untuk melayani sesama, bukan untuk kedaginganku.
Amin tuh amin amin (krn ini susah amat dijalanin)
~
God bless you nooon~

View more

What a great opportunity to imply "neo-atheists" are fascist! Thanks, anon.

---

Full disclosure: I don't have any organised religious affiliation, & I was once very much a neo-atheist in the Dwakinsian tradition. I purchased & read The God Delusion the year it was released. I also read God Is Not Great, & The End Of Faith. Also whatever Ayaan Hirsi Ali's somewhat-fictional autobiography was called. The early seminal texts in the neo-atheist tradition, basically.

---

These texts are all poorly-researched & argumentatively hollow appeals to anecdote & "fee-fees," a series of complicated metaphors for the spiritual dangers of anti-material thought. So the short answer is yes, on the surface, there's no relevant difference between "militant atheists" (I'm referring to them as "neo-atheists," because they're not always prone to militarism) & your more-traditional religious movements.

---

This is only on the surface, tho. To really get into the meat of what makes these neo-atheists effectively identical to any other religious believers ("faith-heads," as they're sometimes known in the relevant circles) you need to look at metaphysics. This is difficult, because like Scientologists, neo-atheists exploit the tenets of liberalism to effectively operate in the open as a hate group. They're very careful to avoid openly stating their own metaphysical commitments, because they're aware it's self-defeating for them to openly espouse dogmatism.

---

It IS a negative dogma tho. What this means is its dogma is outwardly-directed by what they DON'T believe, not what they do believe. By limiting themselves to critiques of positive dogma, they disguise it, thus giving the appearance of being friendly to liberalism. This is also what gives them their "militant" character despite their almost-never engaging in violence or open threats of such. This makes them tricksy, but if you're familiar with their ideological targets, a stark outline of their actual beliefs swiftly forms.

---

In short, it's science - the "harder" the better. Neo-atheism is opposed vehemently to any unscientific belief system, whether it be Gods or anti-vaccination or witchcraft or "New Age" spiritualism or astrology. If it can't be measured physically, it's unacceptable & dangerous. This is a metaphysical position: in short, that there's no such thing as metaphysics, only physics. They're quite dedicated to pretending this means they don't HAVE a metaphysic, but obviously taking a position on metaphysics IS a metaphysic. The neo-atheist grip on logic is very tenuous, which is immediately apparent if you're forced to engage with them.

---

It's this insistence on a narrow understanding of metaphysics - what's roughly known as "physicalism" in philosophical traditions, & maybe "materialism" in Christian theology - that gives neo-atheism its specific dogma. It's why I don't call myself an atheist anymore, despite being faithless. The "narrowness" of their beliefs is what qualifies them as "extremists (or fascists)."

View more

Ultimately what it came down to was the authority of (and definition of) "church". It seemed necessary (both logically and from scripture) that a Church built upon Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18) must exist for all time since that of the Apostles. This Church would have been, among other things, responsible for authoritatively defining the canon of scripture c.385. This Church (whatever it was), was confessed in Nicene Creed as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" c.325 and in the very early (possibly 1st century) Apostles' Creed as "holy catholic". I was constrained to believe (by my evangelical faith) that the Councils of Ephesus and Nicea and the Apostolic tradition down to them *had to be* infallible.

---

So where was this Church between 385 (at the latest) and 1900, when my "denomination" became a thing? Well, Evangelical theology didn't really touch on this too much (weak point pound pulpit harder), but from what I could gather, I was supposed to believe that the Church (which on earth authoritatively defined the creeds and canon of scripture) was more of a "propositional" church--*merely* the gathering of believers. Did those gatherings define themselves the same way our gatherings defined themselves?

---

Of course that was preposterous.

---

Whatever Church that was in 385 had *final* authority from Christ himself... and all the Apostles were long dead. So if I was to go looking for that Church, it would at least have to *claim* to be that selfsame Church. At that point, your options are pretty limited. Basically there are two. I chose the one that seemed the least strange (to my Western mind).

View more