Theology

Genesis 1 & 2

croc — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:01:33 -0500

Gavin

Re comments made in previous thread I've just read

http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

Hell.

bonnie43uk — Wed, 16 May 2012 01:14:25 -0400

What are your personal views on Hell?

I would imagine that most of you people in here dont believe in the literal "fire and brimstone" eternal hell. (though i could be surprised).

With my catholic upbringing as a child, hell was taught to us as a real place that existed, this idea stayed in my head well into my teens, it's taken quite a few years to wean myself off of this concept. My brother in particular was affected quite badly with threats of hell, .. these have even accompanied him into adulthood in various guises.

Do you simply see hell as a place that is somehow "not with god"? which could mean some kind of an eternal emptiness. I'd be quite happy with that really, .. it reminds me of Mark Twains quote when asked about death .."I was nothing for billions of years, and it didn't inconveinience me in the slightest"

It would be interesting to hear any personal views of hell.

Atonement

Simon — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:24:38 -0400

Right I think I will try and kick things off on our new forum -

I have previously characterised the common penal substitution view of the atonement - as favoured by many evangelicals - as:

"God sacrificing himself to himself to allow himself to change the rules that he himself made".

When I made this comment on the CiS email list the main complaint people had was that I was not taking the doctrine of the trinity seriously enough. Thing is I worry that theologians have got themselves tied up in too many knots about the trinity to the point that they seldom clarify anything. My simplistic "scientists" view is that "God the Father" is the label we give to God's creator/sustainer role, "God the son" is the label we give to his human incarnation in Jesus, and "God the spirit" is the name we give to his moving within people and the church - perhaps God's immanent aspect.

Given this understanding of the trinity, I maintain that penal substitution makes no sense as a theology of atonement.

Simon

What makes good theology?

Simon — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:47:53 -0400

So the latest creationism discussion, and especially Anthony's justification of reasons to adopt the YEC position, made me start to think about what constitutes good and what constitutes bad theology.

I think the only conclusion that remains consistent with my other arguments is that if there is any conceivable way that a theological belief can be proved wrong by science, then it is not a good theological belief.

For instance the direct biological lineage of all mankind to two individuals called Adam and Eve is a bad theological belief because it can be shown to be false using genetics. However the resurrection of Jesus is not a bad theological belief because there is no conceivable way that science can disprove it - the best science can say is that no one has been observed rising from the dead and as there is no known scientific mechanism that might allow for this, it is therefore extremely unlikely (but not impossible!).

Is this a good test?

Resurrection of the Body: Does it Matter?

exchemist — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:22:47 -0400

This is in all the Creeds and seems (?) to be maintained as a core belief by most mainstream denominations. But I cannot see why it matters to Christianity in the least. Why would it be necessary to give us back our (physically imperfect) bodies, after our immortal souls are with Christ after our deaths?

I find it hard to resist the thought that, while this may have been culturally important for some reason at the time of St. Paul, it is something that a modern theologian would be tempted to discard or marginalise as inessential.

One of these days my son will ask me about it and I need to give him an answer I feel comfortable to stand behind. Any guidance appreciated.