Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[PSmith08]

Not to intrude, but I'll make it short:

What would Jesus have said about theology ?

You've heard of the New Testament, right? The Gospels, in particular, represent a shift in theological thinking through Jesus' doctrinal developments. I imagine, then, that Jesus would have said rather a lot about theology, largely because he did say a lot about it.

If I want to learn more about Christianity is it really necessary for me to read academicians like Saint Thomas Aquinas or Reinhold Niebuhr ?

Yes, at least if you want to learn more about the theory and philosophy of Christianity. The approaches to Christianity of Aquinas and Niebuhr, among others, inform modern Christianity in a lot of ways, obvious and trivial. I suppose that one could ignore the developments in Christian thought between St. Paul and Benedict XVI (or Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, depending on when he wrote), but that is to ignore the fundamentally changing nature of Christianity.

It's often depressing to read works by Christian theologians since their writing can get very technical and impenetrable.

That doesn't make their works any less valuable.

[karlhenning]

Since "meekness," at least in a modern sense, is a centerpiece of the OP, I think that I should take a moment to correct the misapprehension in that argument. I think ZB made an excellent point, one which I believe merits some elucidation. I should say that I'll assume that the textual traditions have given us more or less what was meant, though that's a whole field of study. Let's begin with our text, Matthew 5:5, which even the fairly vanilla NRSV translates as "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." The commentators in The New Oxford Annotated Bible give us a note, however, "Meek, not 'submissive' or 'inconsequential' but aware of one's proper position in the kingdom; not overweening." (NOAB: NT p. 13.) A good philologist would never take a commentator at his or her word, not least because of the range of meanings that don't quite work in modern English. So, let's look at the Greek New Testament. I'll use the Nestle-Aland version, 27th ed., largely because it's my Greek NT and it's a fairly solid choice for people who really care about textual study in this field. The key word in Matt. 5:5 is, transliterated, praeis, which is (unless I'm way off here) the nominative plural of praos. How does the "Middle Liddell" (a fairly decent Greek lexicon) define that? "Mild, soft, gentle, meek." Now, my limited Greek is Attic Greek, and the NT is written in Koine Greek. There might be a few problems with my exegesis and my philology. Let us, then, turn to the Vulgate, which (after all) was translated from Koine to Latin by folks somewhat closer to the events in question than you and me. The key word there is "mites," which is the nominative plural of "mitis," which Lewis, in his Elementary Latin Dictionary (though it's not all that elementary by today's standards), translates as "mild, soft, gentle, lenient, kind." Now, there's some overlap there. Let's assume, then, that we'll take a consensus approach to our problem. The words mean essentially the same thing: "mild, soft, gentle." There is the flaw with the OP. Where is the theme of provocation or a reluctance to assert oneself? Someone who is "mild, soft, [or] gentle" need not be provoked to evince those traits, nor would s/he be reluctant to assert him- or herself.

Posts like this, make even such a thread of value; thank you.

[drogulus]

If I want to learn more about Christianity is it really necessary for me to read academicians like Saint Thomas Aquinas or Reinhold Niebuhr ?

Yes, at least if you want to learn more about the theory and philosophy of Christianity. The approaches to Christianity of Aquinas and Niebuhr, among others, inform modern Christianity in a lot of ways, obvious and trivial. I suppose that one could ignore the developments in Christian thought between St. Paul and Benedict XVI (or Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, depending on when he wrote), but that is to ignore the fundamentally changing nature of Christianity.

     Whether or not anything in Christianity is true, you have to go to the sources to learn in detail what has been maintained to be true by the great hustlers of the past and present day. If I want to be an expert on Scientology I need to read L. Ron Hubbard, just as PSmith08 indicates.

     History is more important for some beliefs than others. You don't have to know everything about the history of science to know science. Religion, in all it's wondrous and perplexing diversity (on the surface, at least) is very different. The history of what is believed is religion, since the purported subject is otherwise AWOL. This little game is dear to the theologian. You can't deny that he has a subject, and if that subject is not exactly what the naive believer thinks, well who's to know? In other words, a theologian doesn't study God, he studies what has been said and written on the subject. The nonexistence of the subject itself is only a minor detail with all that history to process about who said what, and what it means.

     Just above my post PSmith08 gives a very good example of the sort of product I'm talking about. Notice how effortlessly learned it sounds about matters easily disposed of with a sentence about the proper translation from the Greek. With scholarship like that in the mix, I can practically feel holy myself by contact high! Just kidding of course, but doesn't God exist just a wee bit more than zero when such a fine post is offered up like this? Just a little??

     

[drogulus]

    I knew I'd forget something.

    I like the food.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Drogulus,

Whether or not anything in Christianity is true, you have to go to the sources to learn in detail what has been maintained to be true by the great hustlers of the past and present day. If I want to be an expert on Scientology I need to read L. Ron Hubbard, just as PSmith08 indicates.

Yes, I was going to ask Patrick about that next... And having to read scholars/linguists/commentators in order to fully appreciate the teaching of a religious figure does not seem fair to those who don't have the linguistic or logical skills to carry out that kind of work.

Is that was Jesus Christ intended ?  (Very puzzling to say the least...  )

The history of what is believed is religion, since the purported subject is otherwise AWOL. This little game is dear to the theologian. You can't deny that he has a subject, and if that subject is not exactly what the naive believer thinks, well who's to know? In other words, a theologian doesn't study God, he studies what has been said and written on the subject. The nonexistence of the subject itself is only a minor detail with all that history to process about who said what, and what it means.

Yes, I don't understand how theologians can even begin to defend this whole situation.

[Bu]

 In other words, a theologian doesn't study God, he studies what has been said and written on the subject. The nonexistence of the subject itself is only a minor detail with all that history to process about who said what, and what it means.

True, you might say--in the best situation--he or she is trying to rationally understand and expound upon that which was revealed by God. Obviously, it takes faith to accept such writings as actually derviving from a supernatural being, as it does to accept miracles taking place then, and today. 

[Bogey]

Here is an aspect about my Christianity that I find somewhat conflicting.  First, I believe that as humans we have free will.  That is we can make choices that are good, bad and everything between.  However, as a believer in God, I also believe that He is all knowing.  This being the case he already knows the path that I am going to take, that is, my path is predetermined.  So, can I believe both of these aspects at the same time?  Is it also due to the fact that I am trying to look at things from God's vantage point and by trying to do so I come up very short?  Comments and insights most welcome.

[Bogey]

Does the above make me a compatibilist?

[Bogey]

From the net:

Compatibilism in this context holds that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are both biblical concepts and, rightly understood, are not mutually exclusive. The all-knowing God (who sees past, present, and future simultaneously from the perspective of eternity) created human beings (who have the subjective reality of making choices in the present that have consequences for themselves and others in the future) in such a way that both are true: God is ultimately sovereign and therefore must have at least permitted any choice that a human could make, but at the same time God is right to hold humans accountable because from their perspective within the confines of serial time, humans make moral choices between good and evil.

[Bu]

I suppose you are, Bogey.  I dunno........I'm kinda of reminded of the debate between election/predestination, for some reason.  Hmm...God created us with free will to choose and decide, but even with a knowledge of what the future entails, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's causing or creating us to act in a certain way: He's simply allowing us to choose in the temporal what he knows to be in the eternal.  Maybe that sounds like he's rigging the outcome a little (like a crooked horserace), but that seems more true to me if you believe that God arbitarily chooses salvation.

[Bogey]

He's simply allowing us to choose in the temporal what he knows to be in the eternal. 

This is very well put.

[Bu]

Thank you, my friend.  0:)

[Florestan]

And having to read scholars/linguists/commentators in order to fully appreciate the teaching of a religious figure does not seem fair to those who don't have the linguistic or logical skills to carry out that kind of work.

Eric, it seems to me that all this thread is about rationalizing your reluctance to accept Christ's teachings.

"I can't be a Christian because I love arts", "I can't be a Christian because I am not able to grasp theological concepts", "I can't be a Christian because  I live in the real world and not in a monastery" a.s.o.

These points are as wrong as they get.

The first can be easy refuted by inviting you to walk in an old Catholic or Orthodox church and take the time to study and admire the works of art and the beauty that surround you at every step. Or buy a book about the Western or Eastern mediaeval or baroque cathedrals and monasteries and immerse yourself in a world full of beauty, a world that breathes and radiates beauty.

It is this elaborate and careful blending of the arts in the construction of the cathedrals and churches that gives a lie to the second claim as well. They were designed and built at a time when the vast majority of the people were illiterate, amd they were designed and built with the specific purpose of instructing those people in the Christian doctrine without books or treatises. The whole story of Christ, the truth, symbolism and allegories on which Christianity stands are encapsulated in stone and paintings, in words and music, so that anyone who enters with open eyes, heart and mind can understand them, of course with the help of a priest. As a matter of fact, the idea that one needs reading theological treatises in order to be a good Christian is completely alien to the genuine Christian tradition.

The same cathedrals and churches refutes the third claim, too. They were not built in secluded places, but right in the center of towns or villages, just as Christ lived among fishermen, custom-house officers, peasants and prostitutes. They are opened to anyone, just as Christ received anyone who came to Him. They are in the world, but not of the world, just as Christ was.

Being a good Christian is not easy, to be sure. But the crux of the matter has been nailed on by G. K. Chesterton: The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. .

[karlhenning]

Chesterton is always a good read, Andrei!

(Nit-picky erratum, but his first initial is G.)

[Florestan]

(Nit-picky erratum, but his first initial is G.)

I fixed the error, thanks for pointing it out.

[karlhenning]

If I had been christened "Gilbert Keith," I had gone by G.K., too 

[DavidRoss]

Oboy!  Another thread providing an opportunity for bigots to take cheap shots at Christians!  It's so comforting to know that one can be absent from GMG for a few months and yet return to find that nothing has changed!

PSmith is right about "meek."  In the context, a more accurate contemporary translation would be "humble."  And the best short definition of "humble" I've heard is that it's the condition of being teachable.  The concept includes substantial overlap with Lao Tzu's primary virtue of "not regarding oneself as the center of the world."

Among "lovable aspects of the Christian religion" (whatever that means), any at least modestly historically literate and fair-minded person must include such legacies as increasingly universal education and self-determination, modern science and medicine, philanthropy, altruism, Western art and music, contemporary ideals of justice and equality, the brotherhood of man, the rights and inclusion of women and children and the poor, the end of slavery...in short, virtually the entire set of values and ideals that have guided Western civilization for nearly two millenia and to which we owe virtually every good that most Westerners today take for granted.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Andrei,

Again, what puzzled me was reconciling:

1. The fresh and radical values of the Christian religion with a 'born again' person's desire to pursue aesthetic activities.

and

2. The complexity of theological writings throughout the centuries with the simplicity Christ's teachings.

Thanks.

Can any Christian today honestly claim that Aquinas'  Summa Theologica  is an indispensable work ?  Why is it even important ?

Isn't 'The Sermon on The Mount' and the other pronouncements of Christ sufficient ?

[Herman]

Among "lovable aspects of the Christian religion" (whatever that means), any at least modestly historically literate and fair-minded person must include such legacies as increasingly universal education and self-determination, modern science and medicine, philanthropy, altruism, Western art and music, contemporary ideals of justice and equality, the brotherhood of man, the rights and inclusion of women and children and the poor, the end of slavery...in short, virtually the entire set of values and ideals that have guided Western civilization for nearly two millenia and to which we owe virtually every good that most Westerners today take for granted.

This is a common fallacy among conservative people.

In reality most of these things wouldn't have happened without humanism, which is why virtually all these developments started gathering speed after 1750.

[karlhenning]

This is a common fallacy among conservative people.

In reality most of these things wouldn't have happened without humanism, which is why virtually all these developments started gathering speed after 1750.

You've asserted a fallacy without anywhere near proving it, of course, Herman.  And perhaps you have indulged in a fallacy of your own.

These developments do indeed, as David indicates, have their roots in Christian values — you seem to mean humanism as something distinct from Christianity, but Christianity has been a humanizing influence in the world.

Did these developments happen in the world outside of Christendom, hmm?

Oboy!  Another thread providing an opportunity for bigots to take cheap shots at Christians!

Quoted for truth.