4 ms·

As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance abou

by mmyyyy 9y ago

As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual honesty demands of us that we properly understand a viewpoint before rejecting it. >God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences they couldn't comprehend. You claim this is the Christian view of the atonement. Where do you get this? Is it scriptural? Patristic? Don't speak on behalf of Christianity if you do not understand it. And let me tell you in case this isn't clear: You do not understand it. How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position?

anonred 9y ago
Having read a small amount of theology[1], I speculate that the broad and sometimes conflicting Christian perspectives throughout history make it difficult for the layperson to really grasp "true" Christianity (if there is such a thing.) Even going from say, St. Augustine to Kierkegaard, there's noticeable shifts in thought. I think the burden of proof squarely lies in advocates of Christianity, not the other way around. [1] It's also been many years since I last touched the subject.
Ascetik 9y ago
Traditional Catholic here, former seminarian in a traditional seminary. >How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. If they want to know what Christianity truly teaches have them read St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Augustine, The Council of Nicaea, The Council of Jerusalem, The Council of Trent, Cornelius a Lapide commentary, Haydock Commentary, the Catena Aurea, the Latin and Greek fathers. It is amazing how incredibly prideful and intellectually dishonest people are. If they took even 20-30 hrs of historical and theological study of what the Church always believed before the Protestant revolt, they would quickly realize that they know next to nothing about Christianity or History in general.
- anonred 9y ago
  > Intellectual laziness. It's more of a coping mechanism, is it not? I've read roughly half of the things you've listed, but definitely don't remember most of the nuances. By default, people don't know (or care) about philosophy, and religion is a type of philosophy. It's a bit like bashing people for not taking the time to read Kant.
  - Pamar 9y ago
    It's a bit like bashing people for not taking the time to read Kant. I think that thebproblem is that people that haven’t taken the time to read Kant most of the time do not attempt to criticize or discuss his work.
    - charcoal23 9y ago
      Kant isn't directly used in ways which oppress or abuse people. His works are generally not used as the foundation of unpleasant systems. Children are not raised to think of Kant as infallible, nor are they punished for failing to follow his dictates. People criticize religion without extensively reading the theology because religion is a lived experience in a way that Kant isn't.
  - lurcio 9y ago
    The stakes are clearly higher here (or claimed to be, as you like it)....no one has condemned you to the lake of fire for not knowing Kant :-)
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  >Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. Wow that's incredibly judgemental from someone claiming to be a christian. I see you've learned the lessons from those books well and are applying them in your daily life.
  - cgmg 9y ago
flukus 9y ago
> As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Can you come up with an explanation that is succinct and correct? All the christian apologetics I read end up saying virtually the same thing, they just pretend they aren't by saying the same thing in a 10,000 word treatise. It's like every time I read about how $deity isn't a violation of cause and effect, it always ends up being some long winded special pleading. > You claim this is the Christian view of the atonement. Where do you get this? Is it scriptural? Patristic? Could you break down each part of the fairly short sentence and explain how it's wrong? Preferably without the quantum jesus that both is and is not god.
- mmyyyy 9y ago
  I'll break it down first and explain why it's incorrect -- (sorry this came out longer than I expected) the atonement is a big topic let me know if you have questions or if something needs clarification. I can provide sources for everything that I'm saying as well if you wish. "God is sacrificing" This makes it sound like Christ was a passive agent in the events of the passion and resurrection, which he is not -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same will. "God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him" Note how this statement must be false because it's contradictory. How can X "sacrifice" Y, when X == Y? This comes from a misunderstanding of the phrase "Jesus is God" -- that phrase means that Jesus is 'homoousious' in Greek or 'has the same nature/essence' with God the Father. However some people understand it incorrectly as "Jesus is the same person as the Father". The idiom for Jesus is not God (which is never mentioned in the NT or the nicene creed -- never it is said that "Jesus is God") but the idiom is 'Son of God'. This idiom is the one language that is used by the council of Nicaea to formulate the creed. And to explain what 'Son of God' means the creed goes on to say that Jesus is homoousious with the Father. "to himself" The popular and incorrect understanding of this is that God just wanted someone to be punished instead of humanity (note how that doesn't even make sense how humanity is reconciled to God if someone else took the punishment! And how is Jesus supposed to die instead of humanity when he later rose from the dead? the whole thing is absurd!) but this understanding of the atonement (called 'penal substitution') is part of 16th century reformation theology. In the firsth 10 centuries of Christianity we have ZERO authors who thought about the atonement that way (have a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity for a general view of this). The reason all Christian apologists believe this and try to defend it is because they are protestant. "in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place" This just portrays God as one who needs to find a 'loophole' in the system which he himself has put in place. How can this be even intelligble? God can do whatever he wants and he could have forgiven humanity easily. It's just that what humanity needed was more than forgiveness: human beings needed to be made alive again after being subject to death because of sin. Again just to be clear: the death because of sin is not a punishment -- it's the natural course of events when a human being turns their back to the source of life -- God. "so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created" The popular image of God throwing people in a pit of fire and torturing them for eternity is not a Christian image. It first made its way to Christianity long long ago (which is probably why it's still prevalent) with the apocalypse of Peter -- a document that was influenced by pagan ideas (I'll put a reference here because this is important: this is from Bruce Metzger's The canon of the NT)
charcoal23 9y ago
That's the view of the atonement as presented in fundamentalist / evangelical circles. Reduced to snarky absurdity, but the theology is itself absurd. Perhaps this is different than your own experience or reading, but it doesn't make this experience less valid. Considering this is the dominant form of Christianity in the US, I think it's safe to say the snarky statement above accurately describes Christianity as how a majority of us experienced it. My childhood spent in a very restrictive environment, and watching how "Christians" behave, definitely gives me the right to speak on behalf of Christianity, and the right to reject it completely as the fraud it is. I understand it completely well. All I have to do is observe what they do. From the near-abuses of my own experience, to how the Orthodox have been perfectly willing to embrace Putin and other cruel leaders, to how women and gay people are frequently treated. There's the cruelty dispensed by the faithful over the millennia. In your own response there's no shred of Christ's love or humility. You offer nothing but cold, empty judgements rushing to defend and insult. All of this shows there is little to nothing of worth in the system, and wasting hours of my irreplaceable life reading men (and it's always men) debate how many angels can fit atop a pin, is not going to convince me otherwise.
- mmyyyy 9y ago
  Indeed as I said earlier part of the problem is the kind of theology that is taught especially in the US. I never said it was an invalid experience but only said that it cannot be a representation of Christianity - for one to get that they would need to look into works by Christian authors throughout the years. I'm sorry to hear you were personally negatively affected by the Church. Btw Orthodox is a big umbrella, I'm not sure what you're referring to with Putin, I'm not Russian Orthodox. I recognise that my comment may have been flippant. But you can't judge Christianity based on its misuse or the inadequacies of Christians. I am just sick and tired of hearing that my beliefs are irrational, or "out of date", and that I need to "get on with the times" and abandon myths and legends about God and Christ. This has been a consistent impression I get from others especially in the tech field. And upon talking to people who believe this I find that they really have done no research on their part and so end up with superficial understanding of everything. I only ask that people do their due diligence and read Christian texts to judge for themselves. I encourage you to completely abandon the current messy Christian debates (including my comment) and look into Christian texts of the first few centuries. Indeed a lot of writers are men due to the cultural reasons of old times. But you can find sayings by women: https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Desert-Mothers-Sayings-Christian/dp/0809140160 https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Desert-Mothers-Sayings-Chri...
jmcqk6 9y ago
>How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? I find it incredibly unsurprising that a christian like yourself would assume you know everything about my understanding of religion based on a single snarky comment on an internet forum. I also find it incredibly unsurprising that a christian like yourself assumes that your understanding of christianity is the one that's right, and most Christians agree with you. >Don't speak on behalf of Christianity if you do not understand it. And let me tell you in case this isn't clear: You do not understand it. Holy shit. Literally. There was no place in my statement that I claimed to be speaking on behalf of christianity. Go ahead and keep 'splaining away to that strawman you constructed.
lurcio 9y ago
Any Christian should completely understand, indeed expect, "that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology."

by mmyyyy 9y ago

anonred 9y ago

Having read a small amount of theology[1], I speculate that the broad and sometimes conflicting Christian perspectives throughout history make it difficult for the layperson to really grasp "true" Christianity (if there is such a thing.) Even going from say, St. Augustine to Kierkegaard, there's noticeable shifts in thought. I think the burden of proof squarely lies in advocates of Christianity, not the other way around. [1] It's also been many years since I last touched the subject.

Ascetik 9y ago

Traditional Catholic here, former seminarian in a traditional seminary. >How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. If they want to know what Christianity truly teaches have them read St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Augustine, The Council of Nicaea, The Council of Jerusalem, The Council of Trent, Cornelius a Lapide commentary, Haydock Commentary, the Catena Aurea, the Latin and Greek fathers. It is amazing how incredibly prideful and intellectually dishonest people are. If they took even 20-30 hrs of historical and theological study of what the Church always believed before the Protestant revolt, they would quickly realize that they know next to nothing about Christianity or History in general.

anonred 9y ago
> Intellectual laziness. It's more of a coping mechanism, is it not? I've read roughly half of the things you've listed, but definitely don't remember most of the nuances. By default, people don't know (or care) about philosophy, and religion is a type of philosophy. It's a bit like bashing people for not taking the time to read Kant.
- Pamar 9y ago
  It's a bit like bashing people for not taking the time to read Kant. I think that thebproblem is that people that haven’t taken the time to read Kant most of the time do not attempt to criticize or discuss his work.
  - charcoal23 9y ago
    Kant isn't directly used in ways which oppress or abuse people. His works are generally not used as the foundation of unpleasant systems. Children are not raised to think of Kant as infallible, nor are they punished for failing to follow his dictates. People criticize religion without extensively reading the theology because religion is a lived experience in a way that Kant isn't.
- lurcio 9y ago
  The stakes are clearly higher here (or claimed to be, as you like it)....no one has condemned you to the lake of fire for not knowing Kant :-)
jmcqk6 9y ago
>Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. Wow that's incredibly judgemental from someone claiming to be a christian. I see you've learned the lessons from those books well and are applying them in your daily life.
- cgmg 9y ago

flukus 9y ago

> As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Can you come up with an explanation that is succinct and correct? All the christian apologetics I read end up saying virtually the same thing, they just pretend they aren't by saying the same thing in a 10,000 word treatise. It's like every time I read about how $deity isn't a violation of cause and effect, it always ends up being some long winded special pleading. > You claim this is the Christian view of the atonement. Where do you get this? Is it scriptural? Patristic? Could you break down each part of the fairly short sentence and explain how it's wrong? Preferably without the quantum jesus that both is and is not god.

mmyyyy 9y ago
I'll break it down first and explain why it's incorrect -- (sorry this came out longer than I expected) the atonement is a big topic let me know if you have questions or if something needs clarification. I can provide sources for everything that I'm saying as well if you wish. "God is sacrificing" This makes it sound like Christ was a passive agent in the events of the passion and resurrection, which he is not -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same will. "God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him" Note how this statement must be false because it's contradictory. How can X "sacrifice" Y, when X == Y? This comes from a misunderstanding of the phrase "Jesus is God" -- that phrase means that Jesus is 'homoousious' in Greek or 'has the same nature/essence' with God the Father. However some people understand it incorrectly as "Jesus is the same person as the Father". The idiom for Jesus is not God (which is never mentioned in the NT or the nicene creed -- never it is said that "Jesus is God") but the idiom is 'Son of God'. This idiom is the one language that is used by the council of Nicaea to formulate the creed. And to explain what 'Son of God' means the creed goes on to say that Jesus is homoousious with the Father. "to himself" The popular and incorrect understanding of this is that God just wanted someone to be punished instead of humanity (note how that doesn't even make sense how humanity is reconciled to God if someone else took the punishment! And how is Jesus supposed to die instead of humanity when he later rose from the dead? the whole thing is absurd!) but this understanding of the atonement (called 'penal substitution') is part of 16th century reformation theology. In the firsth 10 centuries of Christianity we have ZERO authors who thought about the atonement that way (have a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity for a general view of this). The reason all Christian apologists believe this and try to defend it is because they are protestant. "in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place" This just portrays God as one who needs to find a 'loophole' in the system which he himself has put in place. How can this be even intelligble? God can do whatever he wants and he could have forgiven humanity easily. It's just that what humanity needed was more than forgiveness: human beings needed to be made alive again after being subject to death because of sin. Again just to be clear: the death because of sin is not a punishment -- it's the natural course of events when a human being turns their back to the source of life -- God. "so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created" The popular image of God throwing people in a pit of fire and torturing them for eternity is not a Christian image. It first made its way to Christianity long long ago (which is probably why it's still prevalent) with the apocalypse of Peter -- a document that was influenced by pagan ideas (I'll put a reference here because this is important: this is from Bruce Metzger's The canon of the NT)

charcoal23 9y ago

That's the view of the atonement as presented in fundamentalist / evangelical circles. Reduced to snarky absurdity, but the theology is itself absurd. Perhaps this is different than your own experience or reading, but it doesn't make this experience less valid. Considering this is the dominant form of Christianity in the US, I think it's safe to say the snarky statement above accurately describes Christianity as how a majority of us experienced it. My childhood spent in a very restrictive environment, and watching how "Christians" behave, definitely gives me the right to speak on behalf of Christianity, and the right to reject it completely as the fraud it is. I understand it completely well. All I have to do is observe what they do. From the near-abuses of my own experience, to how the Orthodox have been perfectly willing to embrace Putin and other cruel leaders, to how women and gay people are frequently treated. There's the cruelty dispensed by the faithful over the millennia. In your own response there's no shred of Christ's love or humility. You offer nothing but cold, empty judgements rushing to defend and insult. All of this shows there is little to nothing of worth in the system, and wasting hours of my irreplaceable life reading men (and it's always men) debate how many angels can fit atop a pin, is not going to convince me otherwise.

mmyyyy 9y ago
Indeed as I said earlier part of the problem is the kind of theology that is taught especially in the US. I never said it was an invalid experience but only said that it cannot be a representation of Christianity - for one to get that they would need to look into works by Christian authors throughout the years. I'm sorry to hear you were personally negatively affected by the Church. Btw Orthodox is a big umbrella, I'm not sure what you're referring to with Putin, I'm not Russian Orthodox. I recognise that my comment may have been flippant. But you can't judge Christianity based on its misuse or the inadequacies of Christians. I am just sick and tired of hearing that my beliefs are irrational, or "out of date", and that I need to "get on with the times" and abandon myths and legends about God and Christ. This has been a consistent impression I get from others especially in the tech field. And upon talking to people who believe this I find that they really have done no research on their part and so end up with superficial understanding of everything. I only ask that people do their due diligence and read Christian texts to judge for themselves. I encourage you to completely abandon the current messy Christian debates (including my comment) and look into Christian texts of the first few centuries. Indeed a lot of writers are men due to the cultural reasons of old times. But you can find sayings by women: https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Desert-Mothers-Sayings-Christian/dp/0809140160 https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Desert-Mothers-Sayings-Chri...

jmcqk6 9y ago

>How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? I find it incredibly unsurprising that a christian like yourself would assume you know everything about my understanding of religion based on a single snarky comment on an internet forum. I also find it incredibly unsurprising that a christian like yourself assumes that your understanding of christianity is the one that's right, and most Christians agree with you. >Don't speak on behalf of Christianity if you do not understand it. And let me tell you in case this isn't clear: You do not understand it. Holy shit. Literally. There was no place in my statement that I claimed to be speaking on behalf of christianity. Go ahead and keep 'splaining away to that strawman you constructed.

lurcio 9y ago

Any Christian should completely understand, indeed expect, "that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology."