An honest question for Christians

[red_jon]

And to think I post on these very forums and no-one asks me.

Ive told you, God lives in my head and tells me to kill. Why don't I just ask him?

[Japher]

To err is human, to forgive is divine...

Does without sin mean not having sinned?

[red_jon]

God says torch the hospital.

[Japher]

You got issues

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Re: An honest question for Christians

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Catholicism believes (this is one of the most important parts of Catholicism mind you) that Jesus is both full God and fully human.

That's the answer. And one of the great strengths of this for Christians is Jesus fully experienced what it is to be human. He understands.

[MBD]

If you really were serious and "honest" about wanting to have a better understanding of some aspect of Christian theology, wouldn't it make more sense to talk with a local minister or priest, rather than posting a question on a board like this?

[Ben Kenobi]

Wernazuma:

I don't think this idea comes down to differences between churches.

In order for Christ to atone for sins, he must be fully God and fully man at the same time.

Christ has to feel fleshy temptations, to eat, of pride, but because he is still God, he does not succumb to these temptations.

I don't know if that is any clearer, Wernazuma, but this is one of the fundamental Christian creeds and should not vary between churches.



Nice to see all the intelligent posts!

[Elok]

Well, I'm Orthodox Christian, not catholic/protestant, but what I was always taught is something along the lines of:

God understands sin in the same sense that a psychologist understands madness or a doctor understands illness; he is aware of how it feels, he knows the symptoms, he tracks its process, but it doesn't really affect him as such. Actually, in the Orthodox tradition, the idea of a sharp division between god and man is actually itself something of a symptom of the fall. Originally, the human race was in a state of continuous communion with god, and had free will but felt no compulsion to evil because evil ultimately doesn't profit its user. Well, that's a bad explanation, but basically, Adam theoretically knew he could eat the fruit, just like he could technically punch himself in the nuts. He didn't do the former, until a certain somebody suggested it, for the same reason he didn't do the latter. It never occured to him. Why would it? Adam had everything he could possibly need-plenty of food, abundant water, perfect weather, no dangers, literally the most beautiful woman on earth as his wife, etc. Sin was and is in that sense a complete abandonment of reason. Christ is sometimes called the "new adam" for just this reason. He was like the first man, unfallen, but unlike Adam he had omniscience and therefore knew better than to take up any offers to the contrary. Satan tempted him only insofar as he talked to him with offers that would probably tempt other human beings. Christ didn't kick him out of his head or what have you for reasons of his own; my guess is, he wanted to prove he was tough enough(which, if you believe in Christianity, he clearly was).
Does that explain enough?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Wernazuma:

I don't think this idea comes down to differences between churches.

In order for Christ to atone for sins, he must be fully God and fully man at the same time.

Christ has to feel fleshy temptations, to eat, of pride, but because he is still God, he does not succumb to these temptations.

I don't know if that is any clearer, Wernazuma, but this is one of the fundamental Christian creeds and should not vary between churches.



Nice to see all the intelligent posts!

Actually it varies quite a bit. Some Christian churches believe Christ is only divine and others that he is only humans. Others believe he is only part of both. Catholicism is the only one I am sure about on this issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some Christian churches believe Christ is only divine and others that he is only humans.

I'd be very interested to see these 'Christian' churches that deny either Christ's divinity or humanity.

[yavoon]

its somewhat irrelevant since contradiction is at the base of xtianity.

[Elok]

Originally posted by yavoon
its somewhat irrelevant since contradiction is at the base of xtianity.

Well aren't you just incredibly clever. We've never heard that kind of remark before. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us. Now stop trolling, please. Other people on this board have said the exact same thing with far greater eloquence, so don't get smug. Sheesh.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by obiwan18


I'd be very interested to see these 'Christian' churches that deny either Christ's divinity or humanity.

There have occasionally been sects which have disputed this.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Apocalypse: This approach means that for being hujman, he had the potential to do wrong. Yet as also being fully God, he had no potential of doing so. As I understand it, the Catholic solution of the problem is just stating the very contradiction itself.

W, Your observation is why Arianism was so prevalent once upon a time.

[Ned]

W, Arianism may also be a way to unite all three monotheistic religions. But, of course, it was discredited by the Council of Nicea - almost by order of Constantine.