What’s your story?
I would say I’m now a Christian but I have a lot of doubts and struggles. Was raised agnostic but with Christian and Hindu cultural celebrations. Had a spiritual experience a few years ago looking into the night sky after being with friends, explored Hinduism, but had heavy doubt. I fell into new atheism but saw how shallow it was, and found arguments for God and Christianity far more compelling than I gave them credit for.
How do you guys reconcile the differences in the resurrection narratives in the gospels? This is something I’m struggling with a bit, thank you for the responses 👐🏽.
Hey, I’m kind of stuck on this point a little bit and was wondering if I could get some advice on how you guys navigate the fact that Christ’s divinity was something that evolved over time, and wasn’t necessarily what the historical Jesus himself actually did.
I personally place my faith in the Resurrection as being foundational, which I personally think has a robust case. I’ve tried to reconcile parts of the gospel that are mythologized or been read into the Old Testament text. When I read Matthew for the first time, I didn’t realize how much emphasis was on things being prophesied. E.g by Isiah.
There are also parts in which things are borrowed from one gospel to another or things that didn’t directly occur. For example, the graves opening up and the dead walking around - surely several independent sources would have written about something like that.
If I’ve got anything wrong, apologies, I’ve not studied properly the scholarship but it’s a pattern I’ve noticed that professors of religion mention about the gospels. This is not to say that they are entirely unreliable, for example they all agree on women being the first to see the empty tomb, which would have been something odd to make up in that social context - considering women’s position.
I just feel that to be intellectually honest in my faith journey and ask others about questions I have. This isn’t to sound snarky or edgy, but I believe or like to think that God would understand how our different minds process different bits of information, and that some things will confuse us a little, but nonetheless we try to make sense out of it the best way we can. I am autistic and adhd diagnosed so I tend to be very analytical.
See the response from u/Deer_Hart, he explained it better than I did
I’ve probably identified as a Christian since early this year but I’m struggling to accept and reconcile things around the age of Mary. I’ve asked this on other forums and some have tried to explain context and other people have been dismissive and said the following:
- God can do anything even if it is immoral. This statement shuts down any open dialogue about morality and whether it is contextual and even flexible. If we have a law written onto our hearts, why should we force ourselves to switch it off?
- Adolescence didn’t exist as a stage due to economic pressure - thereby making teens grow up faster. This does make sense, but to me this seems like they had a childhood taken from them, albeit not intentionally, but it still raises issues for me. For example, I see responses that we judge things by ‘modern standards’, and that this shouldn’t be applied to older times. This to me sounds like some form of moral relativism? Or am I mistaken?
- An opinion from me - the concept of what a child is being flexible is a great moral concern. I know that in Matthew causing one of these little ones to stray should result in consequences. But if now we would consider a 14-16 to be a child both mentally and physically, and all it takes is a use of term, then child marriage and pregnancy was easily justified then and no one saw an issue with it? To me, morality around treatment of children is a strong issue and should be taken seriously.
- I see Christians criticize Islam due to verses regarding age of Aisha - although I think some sources state she was actually around 16-19? I’m not educated on this area so apologies for any straw man’s or mistakes. But could it not be said that we are quick to critique moral issues in another faith, but fail to look at our own due to our bias? If we read the story about Mary in another religion, would we condemn it more so? And if this is the case, are we excusing otherwise morally questionable elements of our faith but ignoring it because it might mean facing an uncomfortable reality?
I’ve been thinking about the context behind the virgin birth and the story behind it, but there are some gaps in my knowledge so apologies if I make wrong statements 👐🏽👐🏽. Was it that she was visited in a dream by the Spirit and asked? I also know that ideas around her age bring up moral issues, but there’s apparently nothing that specifically mentions her age. However I think it would be fair to say that if she was actually mid teens, then that should make anyone think. I know people give ‘cultural context’ argument when it comes to age of marriage, but would that not show that morality is flexible to change?
I hold that someone of that age is not mature mentally and physically to deal with that situation. I say this coming from a good place and someone who identifies as a Christian and believes that Christ was resurrected and his message. It’s just a question that has been pressing on me for a while regarding morality and things that we might overlook or justify because it’s a core feature of our faith, when in other situations would judge the morality of the circumstance more harshly.
Like if it was featured in another faith would we judge it more so, but we are less inclined when it occurs in our own faith?
I could be wrong - but would that not contradict some kind of real moral obligation? It would be wrong for that to occur to a teenager now, and I personally don’t see why it should be suddenly right then? I see many Christians criticize Islam because of the age of Aisha, but how is this any different? The arguments are the same regarding cultural customs and maturity etc
Hey everyone, I’ve made a few posts on here about my research on denomations along with their history and theology. I’ve mentioned that I like different parts of Eastern Orthodoxy and Methodist and Episcopal theology. Some responses have included that you cannot combine different elements that are not recognized as an officiant church.
My question is though - apart from affirming the Nicene Creed, what makes a church a church? Protestantism exists because of Reform and change, what makes that any different to me embracing Theosis yet rejecting the idea that women cannot occupy higher positions.
Another question is - is Orthodoxy the truly authentic church taught by Christ and the apostles, and we reject it because we do not agree with certain ideas? Also - the concept of Theosis or apophatic/negative theology developed a bit after the time of Christ and his apostles if I’m not wrong? So even in ‘Orthodoxy’ concepts develop from Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy and metaphysics.
Catholics who also claim to be the one true church due to apostolic succession believe in papal authority - which I don’t believe was mentioned in the Bible or practiced by Christ and the Apostles? If theology develops and changes within apostolic churches, why can I not combine different ideas?
And isn’t Theosis the same as social holiness in Methodism?
Hey everyone, I’ve made a few posts on here about my research on denomations along with their history and theology. I’ve mentioned that I like different parts of Eastern Orthodoxy and Methodist and Episcopal theology. Some responses have included that you cannot combine different elements that are not recognized as an officiant church.
My question is though - apart from affirming the Nicene Creed, what makes a church a church? Protestantism exists because of Reform and change, what makes that any different to me embracing Theosis yet rejecting the idea that women cannot occupy higher positions.
Another question is - is Orthodoxy the truly authentic church taught by Christ and the apostles, and we reject it because we do not agree with certain ideas? Also - the concept of Theosis or apophatic/negative theology developed a bit after the time of Christ and his apostles if I’m not wrong? So even in ‘Orthodoxy’ concepts develop from Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy and metaphysics.
Catholics who also claim to be the one true church due to apostolic succession believe in papal authority - which I don’t believe was mentioned in the Bible or practiced by Christ and the Apostles? If theology develops and changes within apostolic churches, why can I not combine different ideas?
And isn’t Theosis the same as social holiness in Methodism?
I recently made a post about my fascination with Eastern Orthodoxy - but I also have different views that differ from it, and I don’t know if any denominations combine different elements.
Being ‘orthodox’ I assume that women are not allowed to occupy higher church positions- similar to Catholicism. I would consider myself left wing and progressive in my politics and also socialist leaning. I love Liberation Theology and to me it is simply reflecting Christs message. I appreciate that this would go against most Orthodox churches - but I find David Bentley Hart very interesting in this respect - he is not considered Orthodox by many Orthobros because of his ‘left wing’ views. To conclude - there are parts of Orthodoxy I find compelling - but it’s annoying because there are not established denominations or communities that combine features of progressive and socialist theology with Theosis and apophatic theology
Hey everyone, I would best describe myself as an agnostic theist but very intrigued by Christianity. I have posted in other communities about the appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy, which includes:
- Apophatic theology. I think it’s pretty cool and is comfortable with an aura of mystery when it comes to comprehending the divine. It lacks the apologetic and evangelizing aspect of some forms of Western Christianity.
- Theosis. The emphasis on the importance of works and becoming more Christ like instead of simply believing to be ‘saved’ seems more aligned with what Christ would do. Methodism is similar in this aspect with its emphasis on social action - but a lot of Western Christianity emphasizes faith instead of becoming more Christ like.
- Rejection of papal authority - without sounding disrespectful to Catholics I can’t help but feel that this is more political as opposed to biblical.
- Some objections. I have seen many express Eastern Orthodoxy can be a ground for racism due to its ties to Russian politics. Although I’ve seen some say it’s more ideal because it wasn’t involved in the slave trade like Western Christian missionaries were, so there’s a range of opinions - and I suppose it can depend on the individual.
- Being ‘orthodox’ I assume that women are not allowed to occupy higher church positions- similar to Catholicism. I would consider myself left wing and progressive in my politics and also socialist leaning. I love Liberation Theology and to me it is simply reflecting Christs message. I appreciate that this would go against most Orthodox churches - but I find David Bentley Hart very interesting in this respect - he is not considered Orthodox by many Orthobros because of his ‘left wing’ views. To conclude - there are parts of Orthodoxy I find compelling - but it’s annoying because there are not established denominations or communities that combine features of progressive and socialist theology with Theosis and apophatic theology
I’m an agnostic theist, but increasingly drawn to Christianity for a while and have been researching different denominations. As the title states, I am very intruiged by orthodoxy for a variety of reasons.
- Ancestral sin or being prone to sin as opposed to directly inheriting guilt. This doctrine seems more fair to humanity and recognizes an inclination towards sin, but recognizes us as individuals with the capacity to choose.
- Theosis and the emphasis on works. I love that living the faith practically is important here, and is similar to Methodism in this aspect. I think the concept of Theosis is pretty cool and is something to aim for. Western Christianity has always seemed odd with the whole over evangelizing and believing in Jesus to be fully saved, with no mention of becoming more Christ-like.
- I don’t understand the supremacy of the Pope in Catholicism, and this is not to insult him, but he is a human being like us. It seems hyper hierarchical if that makes sense?
- Possibly more Protestant leaning here - I appreciate the need for some kind of structure of those who are qualified and understand scripture etc - like bishops or patriachs etc - but I don’t see an inherent need for human beings to adhere or recognize human hierarchies when it comes to being Christ like.
- Confusion around Sola Scriptura. I understand that Christ and the apostles didn’t have a Bible, and I like the quote - “Christ didn’t leave a Bible, he left a Church” - which is a claim to apostolic succession by both Catholics and Orthodox. Yet at the same time - the teachings of Christ and the letters of Paul along with the Acts of the Apostles are documented in the Bible. So we get most of our core knowledge from the Bible - but I also appreciate that reading the Church Fathers is a useful source.
- Lastly, I want to ask whether Oriental Orthodoxy is hugely different because of their interpretation of the Nature of Christ. I can appreciate the Eastern Orthodox objection to him having one nature since all other denominations also reject this doctrine. But my question is - in the modern age, is it something significant as to them being labeled heretical? I know personal views on this will differ so I don’t want to pigeonhole one Eastern Orthodox opinion with all adherents.
Thank you for reading 👐🏽👐🏽
Hey everyone, for at least eight months I have been very intrigued by Christianity. Philosophical arguments for God are more compelling than I initially gave them credit for. The historical case for Jesus and the Resurrection is also highly compelling.
I grew up agnostic and I’m 22 now. Mum raised Hindu, dad raised Christian but neither are strictly practising. Around three years ago i had a spiritual experience and became drawn to Hinduism, I felt like things were aligning and I was connecting with God.
However, I was finding that the historical case for the claims in the Hindu faith were not particularly strong. It’s a beautiful and very broad philosophical system of thought and belief, but it didn’t feel complete.
I then became into New Atheist stuff for a couple of years nearly, but found that it was intellectually shallow.
Although Christianity has the strongest historical case (I believe), I struggle with the idea that I felt so connected with Hinduism - and that other religious experiences can be felt by other faiths. I haven’t really felt that with Christianity, even thought it makes more sense on an intellectual level.
I’m not sure if this a milder version of the problem of evil - people not feeling the Holy Spirit or spiritually connected to Christianity, but experiencing God in other ways.
I also very much struggle with logically seeing how sex before marriage between two consenting people is somehow sinful? Like I find the moral argument for God compelling - that we are bound by some kind of transcendent moral law. But this moral law I feel makes me feel things contrary to the Bible?
This may be triggering - but the animal slaughter and slaughter of the Amalakites feels wrong to me - yet it’s seemingly acceptable and even commanded? This is personally confusing to me, but I am very open minded and would love to hear any answers.
Apologies in advance if I straw-manned anything - this is just my current understanding.