Christian Forum

[Xangsamhua]

I vote in favor of a Christian forum and a Muslim forum too for that matter. It will be a good way of culling the herd here at Thai Visa.

I'd be happy to see a forum about Islam, including Sufism, but think it would be impossible to moderate.

[fletchsmile]

As a follower of the flame of Anor I wandered Middle Earth before any of the new religions or faiths above

I have no objection to a Christian or religious forum, yet I also have little interest in the religious affairs of men.

Perhaps one answer lies in a Buddhism, Philosophy and Religion forum, with a sub-forum for Buddhism and then a second for Philosophy and Religion.

[Xangsamhua]

As a follower of the flame of Anor I wandered Middle Earth before any of the new religions or faiths above

I have no objection to a Christian or religious forum, yet I also have little interest in the religious affairs of men.

Perhaps one answer lies in a Buddhism, Philosophy and Religion forum, with a sub-forum for Buddhism and then a second for Philosophy and Religion.

I'll second that.

[dantilley]

I think the key thing is how the forum is worded. "Christianity" in general would be too broad and the problems feared by the mods would probably manifest themselves pretty quickly. If it was "Christianity in Thailand", I think it then becomes niche enough to be more manageable. NB, before the inevitable comparisons start, "Buddhism" as a general topic makes sense as Thailand is a Buddhist country.

[isanbirder]

I think the key thing is how the forum is worded. "Christianity" in general would be too broad and the problems feared by the mods would probably manifest themselves pretty quickly. If it was "Christianity in Thailand", I think it then becomes niche enough to be more manageable. NB, before the inevitable comparisons start, "Buddhism" as a general topic makes sense as Thailand is a Buddhist country.

It makes more sense in the context of TV, but I don't think it would stop the anti-religious brigade. For these people, there's nothing like denigrating anything which others hold sacred. I don't mind discussing questions about Christianity, but I'm not going to set myself up as a target to be shot at (perhaps some people think I've already done that!).

[robblok]

I don't think the way the poll going is particularly surprising. This forum (and most others I have seen) are full of people whose greatest pleasure seems to be to sneer at and abuse religion. The difficulty about having a forum on religion (of any kind) would be keeping these totally negative posters out. They have nothing positive to offer whatsoever. I don't count Buddhism by the way, as it is more a philosophy than a religion, the Thai version being so heavily contaminated with Brahmanism and animism that little of the Buddha's teaching seems to be put into practice.

So you just want a forum of like minded. That is the problem with religious people they cant stand other views. Its kinda hard defending something that cant be proven.

I would say of forum of jae sayers would be boring but its obviously the only way religious people would want it.

So like others said here a forum like that would be hard to moderate.

[jdinasia]

I don't think the way the poll going is particularly surprising. This forum (and most others I have seen) are full of people whose greatest pleasure seems to be to sneer at and abuse religion. The difficulty about having a forum on religion (of any kind) would be keeping these totally negative posters out. They have nothing positive to offer whatsoever. I don't count Buddhism by the way, as it is more a philosophy than a religion, the Thai version being so heavily contaminated with Brahmanism and animism that little of the Buddha's teaching seems to be put into practice.

Hmmmmm Nothing positive to say? Perhaps like your last line about Buddhism as practiced in Thailand?

[robblok]

I think the key thing is how the forum is worded. "Christianity" in general would be too broad and the problems feared by the mods would probably manifest themselves pretty quickly. If it was "Christianity in Thailand", I think it then becomes niche enough to be more manageable. NB, before the inevitable comparisons start, "Buddhism" as a general topic makes sense as Thailand is a Buddhist country.

It makes more sense in the context of TV, but I don't think it would stop the anti-religious brigade. For these people, there's nothing like denigrating anything which others hold sacred. I don't mind discussing questions about Christianity, but I'm not going to set myself up as a target to be shot at (perhaps some people think I've already done that!).

There is a difference between denigrating and using facts to disprove it. Also you can discuss if religion is a good thing or not. If you just want people to agree with you then you should not be at a forum IMHO.

I would not mind if there is such a forum I would mind it if it was moderated to harshly. If someone goes to the fishing forum and calls me cruel to animals. I can do 2 things cry and huff and puff or ignore it and show that i do my things to minimize my impact (though i know i do harm). If i talk about training and someone calls me vain and stupid i can choose to ignore it. Why would religious people have different rights.

[canuckamuck]

I think the key thing is how the forum is worded. "Christianity" in general would be too broad and the problems feared by the mods would probably manifest themselves pretty quickly. If it was "Christianity in Thailand", I think it then becomes niche enough to be more manageable. NB, before the inevitable comparisons start, "Buddhism" as a general topic makes sense as Thailand is a Buddhist country.

It makes more sense in the context of TV, but I don't think it would stop the anti-religious brigade. For these people, there's nothing like denigrating anything which others hold sacred. I don't mind discussing questions about Christianity, but I'm not going to set myself up as a target to be shot at (perhaps some people think I've already done that!).

There is a difference between denigrating and using facts to disprove it. Also you can discuss if religion is a good thing or not. If you just want people to agree with you then you should not be at a forum IMHO.

I would not mind if there is such a forum I would mind it if it was moderated to harshly. If someone goes to the fishing forum and calls me cruel to animals. I can do 2 things cry and huff and puff or ignore it and show that i do my things to minimize my impact (though i know i do harm). If i talk about training and someone calls me vain and stupid i can choose to ignore it. Why would religious people have different rights.

Yes the cruelty to anglers has got to stop. But the gym rats can take care of themselves

I have been on Christian forums, they run about the same as the Buddhism forum here, but they are heavily moderated. Yes they can become boring because there is quite a bit of agreement, but occasionally the theological debate is fascinating.

I would enjoy some theological debate relative to Thailand. I suppose this is why I sometimes pop up in the Buddhism forum, although I usually just read, because that forum has only a mild level of tolerance for contrary worldviews (nothing wrong with that either). If I do make a post I try to be respectful.

Another sensitive forum is the women's forum and I think it is handled very well. I think the success of that forum shows that a Christian forum may be possible.

I think the hardest part about running a Christian forum here would be the reluctance of Christians to get involved.

[isanbirder]

I think the key thing is how the forum is worded. "Christianity" in general would be too broad and the problems feared by the mods would probably manifest themselves pretty quickly. If it was "Christianity in Thailand", I think it then becomes niche enough to be more manageable. NB, before the inevitable comparisons start, "Buddhism" as a general topic makes sense as Thailand is a Buddhist country.

It makes more sense in the context of TV, but I don't think it would stop the anti-religious brigade. For these people, there's nothing like denigrating anything which others hold sacred. I don't mind discussing questions about Christianity, but I'm not going to set myself up as a target to be shot at (perhaps some people think I've already done that!).

There is a difference between denigrating and using facts to disprove it. Also you can discuss if religion is a good thing or not. If you just want people to agree with you then you should not be at a forum IMHO.

I would not mind if there is such a forum I would mind it if it was moderated to harshly. If someone goes to the fishing forum and calls me cruel to animals. I can do 2 things cry and huff and puff or ignore it and show that i do my things to minimize my impact (though i know i do harm). If i talk about training and someone calls me vain and stupid i can choose to ignore it. Why would religious people have different rights.

Fair comment... in a way! Trouble is, when you are dealing with beliefs, the question of proof/disproof is a difficult one. I believe in God; I can't prove it, nor can anyone disprove it. Hence my comment about denigration... it's not a matter of providing proofs or disproofs, it's a matter of sneering at beliefs which cannot be proved or disproved. You may say that these people are entitled to disagree with me; true, but if they can do nothing but make offensive comments, why should I or any other Christian bother with the forum at all? The end result would be a deafening silence! This may be another way of saying simply that such a forum would not work.

Your second paragraph, Robblok, is irrelevant because it's not dealing with a similar type of situation.

[Orac]

The strong no votes, as opposed to null vote, for interest in a christian or religion forum is probably a good indication that there is a need for one provided there are also a number of yes votes from those who would actually use it as well. Being an Atheist it would indicate posts to me that i do not much want to read much as I might avoid posts in the ladies or gay forums as i might find some of the views difficult to understand though I am sure, like most, I can't help looking!

Clearly moderation is important much as chauvanistic or homophobic posts would not be tolerated in their particular forums.

[Xangsamhua]

Being an Atheist it would indicate posts to me that i do not much want to read much as I might avoid posts in the ladies or gay forums as i might find some of the views difficult to understand though I am sure, like most, I can't help looking!

The earlier suggestion (Fletchsmile's) that there be "a Buddhism, Philosophy and Religion forum, with a sub-forum for Buddhism and then a second for Philosophy and Religion" would allow for the comfortable inclusion of atheist, agnostic and theological non-cognitivist views (the latter being the view that the word "God" can't be meaningfully defined and therefore arguments about God are meaningless). Indeed that last proposition might be a good starting topic for a Philosophy and Religion forum.

I don't think there would be any obligation to "respect" the views of others if one believes them to be irrational (no mutual admiration society, please); however, the holders of alternative views should expect to be treated courteously in this kind of forum and that can be difficult for some (perhaps for all of us on occasion). There's no reason why vigorous debate couldn't occur, as long as ad hominem argument is excluded.

Personally, I'd be very happy to discuss theism with atheists, theists, Ash'ari muslims, Sufis, Hindus, etc, as I believe there is a central point at which they merge. And all are left standing on the edge of the abyss of infinity. (This could be another topic for the forum.) And of course, religion or philosophy is not just about doctrine and epistemology, but also (a lot) about morals and ethics. The recent scandal about the fetuses at Wat Phay Ngeun brought out a lot of anti-abortion posts, and Buddhism as well as Catholicism and Islam have views on abortion.

I guess there just needs to be a sign at the door that says: If your mind is not open, at least to the point that you can participate in a discussion without losing your temper or becoming rude, then you'd better go elsewhere, to the General forum, or perhaps Bedlam. A forum by definition is not a good place for fanatics and crusaders, but they can participate if they're courteous.

[robblok]

There is a difference between denigrating and using facts to disprove it. Also you can discuss if religion is a good thing or not. If you just want people to agree with you then you should not be at a forum IMHO.

I would not mind if there is such a forum I would mind it if it was moderated to harshly. If someone goes to the fishing forum and calls me cruel to animals. I can do 2 things cry and huff and puff or ignore it and show that i do my things to minimize my impact (though i know i do harm). If i talk about training and someone calls me vain and stupid i can choose to ignore it. Why would religious people have different rights.

Fair comment... in a way! Trouble is, when you are dealing with beliefs, the question of proof/disproof is a difficult one. I believe in God; I can't prove it, nor can anyone disprove it. Hence my comment about denigration... it's not a matter of providing proofs or disproofs, it's a matter of sneering at beliefs which cannot be proved or disproved. You may say that these people are entitled to disagree with me; true, but if they can do nothing but make offensive comments, why should I or any other Christian bother with the forum at all? The end result would be a deafening silence! This may be another way of saying simply that such a forum would not work.

Your second paragraph, Robblok, is irrelevant because it's not dealing with a similar type of situation.

Not really different i can disagree with your religion and you can choose to ignore it. I don't see why religion needs special protection.

Its quite similar you either feel insulted or not. Its how you handle comments but many religious people don't seem to be able to do that.

Anyway i could argue for all time with you and you would feel you are right and i would feel i was right. There is only one way to find out and i rather not go yet especially because i think there is nothing after this. Rather have it that you are right then me but logic seems to be on my side.

[Ulysses G.]

There are quite a few regular posters who have little interest in the forum other than to offend and disparage other members and Christianity will draw them to it even more than the political threads do now.

I have little interest in discussing religion, but I would just ignore the forum whereas the professional hate-mongers will target it purposely.

There is no way to have any real debate with these types as they do little besides hurl taunts and nasty comments, rather than present any real argument. I just don't see how a Christian forum would serve any worthwhile function other than giving certain very negative posters another way to vent their spleen.

[isanbirder]

There are quite a few regular posters who have little interest in the forum other than to offend and disparage other members and Christianity will draw them to it even more than the political threads do now.

I have little interest in discussing religion, but I would just ignore the forum whereas the professional hate-mongers will target it purposely.

There is no way to have any real debate with these types as they do little besides hurl taunts and nasty comments, rather than present any real argument. I just don't see how a Christian forum would serve any worthwhile function other than giving certain very negative posters another way to vent their spleen.

A lot of truth in this, Ulysses. I think most Christians would feel, "Why should I bother to offer a target for these people?"

Robblok, you and I will just have to agree to differ... which is far more civilised, and adult, than abusing each other!

[Xangsamhua]

There are quite a few regular posters who have little interest in the forum other than to offend and disparage other members and Christianity will draw them to it even more than the political threads do now.

I have little interest in discussing religion, but I would just ignore the forum whereas the professional hate-mongers will target it purposely.

There is no way to have any real debate with these types as they do little besides hurl taunts and nasty comments, rather than present any real argument. I just don't see how a Christian forum would serve any worthwhile function other than giving certain very negative posters another way to vent their spleen.

Maybe in a forum on religion and philosophy we'd need to put up a sign saying: "This is an ego-free zone. Please check your ego in at the door." In other words, the forum is to be one where the topic of discussion is the topic, not one's personal views and the need to defend them at all costs. (Wishful thinking? )

I don't know if such a forum would meet Thaivisa.com's preference that topics be Thailand-related. Obviously such a forum would be discussing things universal and transcendental, as well as their application to daily life, which for most members takes place here in Thailand, but some themes will not be applicable, or not directly.

The Thailand-relatedness would be situated in the participants. There are some very interesting and knowledgeable people on Thaivisa (or so I have found) and they would bring to a discussion on religion and philosophy perspectives that one doesn't find on most other forums on the web. Having our home-grown cherished views challenged by the cultural "clash" we experience after moving here provides a much broader and perhaps better honed philosophy than we find in our homelands.

[robblok]

There are quite a few regular posters who have little interest in the forum other than to offend and disparage other members and Christianity will draw them to it even more than the political threads do now.

I have little interest in discussing religion, but I would just ignore the forum whereas the professional hate-mongers will target it purposely.

There is no way to have any real debate with these types as they do little besides hurl taunts and nasty comments, rather than present any real argument. I just don't see how a Christian forum would serve any worthwhile function other than giving certain very negative posters another way to vent their spleen.

A lot of truth in this, Ulysses. I think most Christians would feel, "Why should I bother to offer a target for these people?"

Robblok, you and I will just have to agree to differ... which is far more civilised, and adult, than abusing each other!

I think its the best way (to agree to disagree), i don't really mind religious people but the moment they start projecting their morals or let everybody confirm to their beliefs (think no work on Sunday while i as an atheist have no problem working then or buying something). Then i get a bit annoyed. Live and let live and keep your religion in your home no need to bother others with it. (no headscarf or crosses in public schools ect. children need to think for themselves and not be converted at young age). That is basically how i think about it religion is ok as long as you don't force it on others.

[Ulysses G.]

Just for the record, I am not talking about reasonable posters who might have disagreements on religion. I am talking about the ones who are just looking to purposely anger other members and although certain topics attract them more often, almost everything they post is taking a swat at somebody.

[dantilley]

Maybe the only way we can know for sure is to give it a try? A month or two's trial run could be a good idea, then the mods / management can assess the situation after.

[LaoPo]

Fascinating to see that the overwhelming majority is NOT interested in a forum about Christianity and/or a forum about (other) Religions at all.

This forum is for a major part a forum for/from/about Western Expats and other people, interested in a mainly Buddhist country, Thailand, although Buddishm as a "Religion" is only small in comparison to Christian-, Muslim- and Hinduism- Believes next to being Agnostic.

But, since discussions about religions -and countries, related with religions- always end up in a heated debate (and wars..!) without any reason or common sense maybe it's better we leave it this way.

Personally, I refrain from discussions about Religions since it doesn't make sense and ALWAYS ends up in debate-wars since people, who are born within a certain religion (mostly because of their parents' Religion) do NOT have a clear vision upon others' believes and true Religion believes, whether correct or incorrect.

They will defend their own (read: Parents') Religion/Believe until the very bitter end and mostly without clear unbiased Reasons and interest in others' Religion(s).

Major Religions of the World

Ranked by Number of Adherents

http://www.adherents..._Adherents.html

LaoPo :jap:

[sarahsbloke]

I agree that a space for discussion of religious topics pertinent to individual religions could be useful, though I also think that the ground rules would have to be pretty clear. Probably it would be standing rules only to allow topical posts on the religion in question within a particular thread by interested parties- i.e., no cross-religion flaming/bashing/baiting. Each OP could set the topicality rules for that particular thread (i.e. which denomination/sect/creed was topical) and anyone posting out of bounds would be subject to warning.

The difficult part would be in areas in which the individual beliefs run counter to general Thaivisa forum rules. I (and many other mods, I would suppose) wouldn't be up for allowing posts to stand which would break any of the general forum rules regarding discussions about breaking the law of Thailand, for instance, or on bashing minorities, for example, no matter how strongly the individual religious adherents might feel about such things. Clearly if such a forum is created there will be a number of wrinkles to sort out. But this poll is a good place to see if the interest is that keen.

Christianity is all about loving ones fellow man and tolerance for others. So it should be the easiest forum on TV to moderate.

I can think of no part of Christianity that is contrary to TV forum rules.

We could all discuss interesting things like

1) How many angels can stand on a pin head?

2) Did Jesus own the clothes he was crucified in?

[harrry]

If they do have one it wouukd need to have a non christian moderateor to control the offensive judgements by some faiths to those whise behavior they do not agree with.

[Xangsamhua]

I agree that a space for discussion of religious topics pertinent to individual religions could be useful, though I also think that the ground rules would have to be pretty clear. Probably it would be standing rules only to allow topical posts on the religion in question within a particular thread by interested parties- i.e., no cross-religion flaming/bashing/baiting. Each OP could set the topicality rules for that particular thread (i.e. which denomination/sect/creed was topical) and anyone posting out of bounds would be subject to warning.

The difficult part would be in areas in which the individual beliefs run counter to general Thaivisa forum rules. I (and many other mods, I would suppose) wouldn't be up for allowing posts to stand which would break any of the general forum rules regarding discussions about breaking the law of Thailand, for instance, or on bashing minorities, for example, no matter how strongly the individual religious adherents might feel about such things. Clearly if such a forum is created there will be a number of wrinkles to sort out. But this poll is a good place to see if the interest is that keen.

Christianity is all about loving ones fellow man and tolerance for others. So it should be the easiest forum on TV to moderate.

I can think of no part of Christianity that is contrary to TV forum rules.

We could all discuss interesting things like

1) How many angels can stand on a pin head?

2) Did Jesus own the clothes he was crucified in?

You've got it under way, SB!

Answers:

(1) None, if there are angels; none, if there are no angels.

(2) If a historical figure, he was crucified naked or almost naked; if not a historical figure, he was not crucified.

Further question: If Jesus was God and Jesus was crucified, did God suffer? Can God suffer, and if so, does that not suggest a force beyond God's control?

See what I mean?

[canuckamuck]

You've got it under way, SB!

Answers:

(1) None, if there are angels; none, if there are no angels.

(2) If a historical figure, he was crucified naked or almost naked; if not a historical figure, he was not crucified.

Further question: If Jesus was God and Jesus was crucified, did God suffer? Can God suffer, and if so, does that not suggest a force beyond God's control?

See what I mean?

If you understand that Jesus was fully man and fully God it stands to reason that the man suffered. In fact the crucifixion would be meaningless if the man did not suffer, neither would it have meaning if he had not lived like a man and endured temptation the same as every man; Because there is nothing special about a sinless man who had never felt temptation to sin. Also it is mentioned that it is possible to grieve the Holy Spirit - generally through man's rejection of God.

The force beyond the control of God is man's free will. Because it was given and will not be taken away.

[Xangsamhua]

You've got it under way, SB!

Answers:

(1) None, if there are angels; none, if there are no angels.

(2) If a historical figure, he was crucified naked or almost naked; if not a historical figure, he was not crucified.

Further question: If Jesus was God and Jesus was crucified, did God suffer? Can God suffer, and if so, does that not suggest a force beyond God's control?

See what I mean?

If you understand that Jesus was fully man and fully God it stands to reason that the man suffered. In fact the crucifixion would be meaningless if the man did not suffer, neither would it have meaning if he had not lived like a man and endured temptation the same as every man; Because there is nothing special about a sinless man who had never felt temptation to sin. Also it is mentioned that it is possible to grieve the Holy Spirit - generally through man's rejection of God.

The force beyond the control of God is man's free will. Because it was given and will not be taken away.

Thanks Canuck.

I'd like to get into the discussion but not sure that mods will allow it to continue.

But before the axe falls ...

I see the problem in understanding the fully God - fully man thing (the hypostatic union) and when I think I've got it I can't keep it in my head for long.

If Jesus was fully man and fully God at the one time (two natures in one person/body), then yes, the man would suffer through his human nature, while his divine nature is unaffected, but this suggests that whichever nature is operative at any one time is optional - crucifixion is nasty, so let it just happen to the human; but miracles are good, so let the divine get to work there; and semen is messy so let's not make Jesus so human that he has to be conceived in that way, even though human gestation is OK.

My understanding is that the Early Fathers (e.g. Cyril of Alexandria) spoke strongly against the idea that God was "passible", i.e. that he could suffer, and I think that is traditional mainstream Christian teaching. However, some (many?) contemporary theologians have the view that God is not so "other" that God does not experience a sense of loss, or perhaps pain at the suffering of God's people. Their God is more immanant; not totally transcendent. This God is intimately connected with humankind though Jesus's incarnation and, thereby through an indissoluble bond between God and Man in each and all of us. God and Man in this way are connected by continuity. Rethinking the relationship requires us to rethink God, humanity and the cosmos, as all are connected.

For the main body of Sunni Muslims, however, those who have followed the teaching of the Ash'aris and Al-Ghazali, I believe the idea of a God who can suffer is totally meaningless and blasphemous. God is totally other and totally in control. There are no entities, influences or ideas that impact upon God. God is above reason, above justice, above compassion, except to the extent that God wills those things to be and to happen. God is obviously above a sense of loss or pain, then. But, in any case, to Muslims, the idea of God in whatever shape or form, or through any relationship with the victim, dying on a cross is just bizarre. Not so to Christians, who through identification of Jesus with the Word/Son, a component of the Trinitarian God, can envisage God as Word, i.e. Reason - God's operational principle, being incarnated in human form and suffering as human beings do when the underpinning laws that sustain life are violated, e.g. by suffocation, as in crucifixion.

Well, that's my take on it for now.

I don't think a forum on Christianity or philosophy and religion needs to be as heady as this. Much of it could be taken up with ethical questions, information queries, historical questiosn, etc., but it's up to the Thaivisa Administrators whether they want to initiate such a forum or not.

,

[canuckamuck]

Thanks Canuck.

I'd like to get into the discussion but not sure that mods will allow it to continue.

But before the axe falls ...

I see the problem in understanding the fully God - fully man thing (the hypostatic union) and when I think I've got it I can't keep it in my head for long.

If Jesus was fully man and fully God at the one time (two natures in one person/body), then yes, the man would suffer through his human nature, while his divine nature is unaffected, but this suggests that whichever nature is operative at any one time is optional - crucifixion is nasty, so let it just happen to the human; but miracles are good, so let the divine get to work there; and semen is messy so let's not make Jesus so human that he has to be conceived in that way, even though human gestation is OK.

Well thanks for your response.

I don't see why one nature would be optional. We are all flesh, mind, and spirit, all three can experience input and stress which would not necessarily cause suffering to the other. If the body of Jesus contained the Spirit of God, suffering would affect his flesh but the Spirit would know that all was well and going to plan. But for the crucifixion to have been an adequate sacrifice it also needed to be a spiritual death which is a bigger issue. Spiritual death is a separation from God so this would have been excruciating to the mind of Jesus, but He accepted it by His free will.

About which nature gets the credit for what is a bit imaginary so you can you have whatever take on that you please. But I believe that Jesus received what it is mortal from Mary and what is immortal from God, the mind of Jesus would be the child of both, the only begotten Son as it were.

My understanding is that the Early Fathers (e.g. Cyril of Alexandria) spoke strongly against the idea that God was "passible", i.e. that he could suffer, and I think that is traditional mainstream Christian teaching. However, some (many?) contemporary theologians have the view that God is not so "other" that God does not experience a sense of loss, or perhaps pain at the suffering of God's people. Their God is more immanant; not totally transcendent. This God is intimately connected with humankind though Jesus's incarnation and, thereby through an indissoluble bond between God and Man in each and all of us. God and Man in this way are connected by continuity. Rethinking the relationship requires us to rethink God, humanity and the cosmos, as all are connected.

For the main body of Sunni Muslims, however, those who have followed the teaching of the Ash'aris and Al-Ghazali, I believe the idea of a God who can suffer is totally meaningless and blasphemous. God is totally other and totally in control. There are no entities, influences or ideas that impact upon God. God is above reason, above justice, above compassion, except to the extent that God wills those things to be and to happen. God is obviously above a sense of loss or pain, then. But, in any case, to Muslims, the idea of God in whatever shape or form, or through any relationship with the victim, dying on a cross is just bizarre. Not so to Christians, who through identification of Jesus with the Word/Son, a component of the Trinitarian God, can envisage God as Word, i.e. Reason - God's operational principle, being incarnated in human form and suffering as human beings do when the underpinning laws that sustain life are violated, e.g. by suffocation, as in crucifixion.

Well, that's my take on it for now.

With all the theories of the nature of God throughout the many religions it is obvious that many of these concepts disagree and indeed some must therefore be incorrect. Seek and ye shall find.

I don't think a forum on Christianity or philosophy and religion needs to be as heady as this. Much of it could be taken up with ethical questions, information queries, historical questiosn, etc., but it's up to the Thaivisa Administrators whether they want to initiate such a forum or not.

,

I agree, and I enjoy your posts on the Buddhism thread.

[kropotkin]

You've got it under way, SB!

Answers:

(1) None, if there are angels; none, if there are no angels.

(2) If a historical figure, he was crucified naked or almost naked; if not a historical figure, he was not crucified.

Further question: If Jesus was God and Jesus was crucified, did God suffer? Can God suffer, and if so, does that not suggest a force beyond God's control?

See what I mean?

If you understand that Jesus was fully man and fully God it stands to reason that the man suffered. In fact the crucifixion would be meaningless if the man did not suffer, neither would it have meaning if he had not lived like a man and endured temptation the same as every man; Because there is nothing special about a sinless man who had never felt temptation to sin. Also it is mentioned that it is possible to grieve the Holy Spirit - generally through man's rejection of God.

The force beyond the control of God is man's free will. Because it was given and will not be taken away.

.... it stands to reason.... REASON???

We are talking about religion here, leave REASON out of it.

Reason is totally off topic.

That being said, believe whatever you want to believe.

Unless of course, if you live in a religious country, better stick to the official truth then.

[canuckamuck]

.... it stands to reason.... REASON???

We are talking about religion here, leave REASON out of it.

Reason is totally off topic.

That being said, believe whatever you want to believe.

Unless of course, if you live in a religious country, better stick to the official truth then.

Reason is sometimes contrary to faith, and often contrary to religion, because religion is whatever man has has made it to be.

Reason can also be contrary to truth, when the truth is not known. But reason must never be left out of debate.

[Totster]

And this is why a Christian forum or religions forum is a BAD idea.

totster

[transam]

And this is why a Christian forum or religions forum is a BAD idea.

totster

+1, no, +2