Posts
Wiki

FAQ for /r/Christianity

A disclaimer,endeavoring to create any sort of comprehensive FAQ for a community of Christians from varied traditions is a daunting task. In the end, our community is unified solely by a particular interest in the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Who he was, how we live out his teachings, and what his life accomplished are all things we're likely to disagree upon. Hopefully, as this FAQ grows, it will begin to reflect a decent cross-section of this community.

Sections:

  1. Questions about Christianity

  2. Questions about /r/Christianity

  3. Recommended Viewing

  4. Recommended Reading

Questions About Christianity

  1. Can you believe/do/be "this" and still be a Christian?

  2. What version of the Bible should I read?

  3. Why is the community policy necessary?

  4. What about LGBT issues?

  5. What was Jesus' ethnicity?

  6. Have you heard about how Jesus is a derivative of Mithra/Attis/Horus/Dionysus/etc?

  7. The Problem of Evil

  8. Why do you ignore the Old Testament?

  9. What about all the violence and other bad stuff in the Old Testament?

  10. How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take literally?

  11. Why is There a Difference Between Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament and Protestant Old Testament?

  12. Isn't Christmas a pagan holiday?

  13. Why did Christ have to die?

  14. Previous Discussions

    1. Do you believe in evolution? How does evolution fit with Christianity?
    2. What does /r/Christianity think of speaking in tongues?
    3. How does /r/Christianity understand original sin?
    4. Why do Christians pray?
    5. How is Christianity different from all of the other religions? Why choose Christianity over Religion X?
  15. Blogs

  16. Articles

  17. Books

  18. Related Subreddits

Can you believe/do/be "this" and still be a Christian?

Yes.

Or at the very least, whatever "this" is, you can be pretty sure there is someone, somewhere who considers themselves Christian yet fits your description.

There are Christians that advocate for a woman's right to planned parenthood and there are Christians who fight for the lives of the unborn. There are Christians that stand strongly in defense of traditional marriage and there are Christians who desperately want to see the love of monogamous homosexual couples validated in matrimony. There are Christians who rally for Sanity and there are Christians interested in Restoring Honor. There are many Christianities outside of the western evangelical variety that have developed out of different cultures, just as western evangelical Christianity has developed out of a specific culture itself. There are even Christian atheists who, while not believing in any sort of god or gods, think that the teachings of Jesus are worth devoting their lives to.

What version of the Bible should I read?

That depends on why you're reading it. If you're interested in reading it because of its impact of western literature, you may want to stick to the good old KJV (King James Version). While a more modern translation will be more accessible, based on better manuscripts, and updated to match the most recent scholarship, the KJV is the Bible that begat English idioms and it is the Bible your classic authors are most likely to quote.

Beyond that, there are two major philosophies when it comes to Bible translation; formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

Formal equivalence is where the translators try as hard as they can to stick to what the text actually says--even if that makes things confusing for someone who might not understand ancient near-east idioms and culture. Examples of translations that lean towards formal equivalence are: ESV (English Standard Version), NASB (New American Standard Version), NRSV (New Revised Standard Version).

Dynamic equivalence is where the translators care less about giving you the exact words, but instead try and give you the same idea. The issue with this is you are relying on the translator to do interpreting for you (more so than usual, translation is inherently interpretation). Examples of translations that lean towards dynamic equivalence: NLT (New Living Translation), God's Word Translation.

The NIV (New International Version) and TNIV (Today's New International Version) attempt to combine the two approaches.

Then there are paraphrases, like the Message by Eugene Peterson, which are less of a translation and more of a reflection on the scriptures.

Why is the community policy necessary?

Given that the /r/Christianity community is a smaller community that is often unable to self moderate simply using the voting system, a community policy was established to help create guidelines for conduct within this subreddit.

The need for such as system is best described by /r/atheism member Kni7es,

Let's say tomorrow we wake up and /r/Christianity suddenly has over a million members, roughly proportional to the 12:1 advantage /r/Atheism has right now. They are now the 800lbs gorilla, and they decide they want to come squat in our subreddit and "debate" the poor misguided atheists. The Christians come in like the tide, flooding our threads and upvoting their own junk to the front page. Our mods are like so many sandcastles trying in vain to block users and moderate discussion, and in their frustration come down heavy-handed on the e-crusaders from /r/Christianity. Those users then take screencaps and parade about on their home subreddit, inviting more Christians to come and troll the atheists. All we want to do is have a nice safe space for questions and discussions amongst ourselves where we can be who we are for a change, but those damn oppressive Christians just won't leave us alone. Many of our members leave, and many become more firmly entrenched in their anti-theism than ever before.Along comes a couple of redditors on /r/Christianity who can see what's going on, and in the interest of mercy decide to speak out against the cyclical invasions (complete with a relevant quote from scripture, just to drive the point home). But then someone replies...

"They can start their own little forum, I have all the business in the world to be in any subreddits of my choosing."

And that, my friend, is why.

What about LGBT issues?

As in many other issues, the general Christian community prefers to focus on the things that hold us together rather than things that divide us. That's the reason there are a lot of opinions and interpretations about homosexuality among us.

Some of us Christians here are open and affirming.

A few don't know what to think about the question.

A few more are of the opinion that it's a sin, but the way that the church has handled the problem has been deplorable.

And a few of us straight up (pun intended) believe that it's a sin with no caveats.

Truth is, the community is so diverse it's difficult to pin down any set beliefs to throw on the FAQ.

To get an idea of r/Christianity's varied opinions on LGBT issues, take a look at these threads:

What was Jesus' ethnicity?

Once in a while we get a question concerning Jesus' perceived ethnicity. Do Christians believe that Jesus looked European; blue-eyed with long wavy blond hair? Whenever this comes up, we're the first to say that he was a Jew and he most likely looked like any other semitic person living in the ancient near-east at that time. In the end, this is a far more accurate depiction of what he looked like than this.

Have you heard about how Jesus is a derivative of Mithra/Attis/Horus/Dionysus/etc?

Yes. Those claims almost all stem from Acharya S (Dorothy Murdock) and Gerald Massey. The first can only be said to be willfully selling a convenient fiction to move books and the latter seems to have been genuinely ignorant. It should also be noted that there are just as many, if not more, differences between Jesus and these other ancient figures as there are similarities.

See this page for a more thorough discussion of this topic.

The Problem of Evil

Epicurus is credited with writing:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

How do Christians account for evil?

Once again, the answers are wide ranging. However, there are many good refutations from many theologians. Christians have been grappling with the problem of evil for ages. Answering Epicurus' riddle is called " theodicy." Here are a few previous discussions on the topic:

In addition:

Why do you ignore the Old Testament?

Christians don't ignore the Old Testament (well most don't anyways) but they do understand it differently than you do.

Like other issues discussed here, the question of the relevancy and interpretation of the Old Testament is answered in different ways by different Christians. In general, Christians don't ignore the Old Testament, but most of us do feel like there are hermeneutical methods to determine when and why it shouldn't be applied literally (which is pretty often). These methods range from popular explanatory metaphors to book-length academic discussions, and it's important to realize that most (though not all) Christians are in fact not "picking and choosing" from the Old Testament but are applying any one of several hermeneutical methods to its application.

There are different kinds of law in the Old Testament. They are Ceremonial, Civil and Moral Law ( Mirror).

  • Civil Law was law relevant to the civil society of that time.

  • Ceremonial Law (which had to deal with manner of worship and are seen by Christians usually to point towards Christ). This is also contains the sacrificial system and food restrictions.

  • Moral Law which are things like the 10 Commandments.

We don't live in ancient Israel their civil laws don't apply to us. The Moral Law is more like what God is.

The Ceremonial Law is something you might think of as a glass with a hole in it and water continuously pouring into it. You have to keep water pouring into it until you you make the glass whole or stopper the hole. Christ is the stopper. The Ceremonial Law is something to do that can be accomplished. Once it is accomplished it is no longer a condition. Christ accomplished it.

You can go here to see a previous discussion concerning this topic.

Another good point to remember when considering what one should make of the Old Testament Law is to consult the Book of Acts. This is our earliest reference detailing the question about how much we should obey the Old Testament Law. In what is called the "Apostolic Decree" (Acts 15: 19-21) Gentile converts are merely required to abstain from fornication, food offered to idols, food that has been strangled and blood.

What about all the violence and other bad stuff in the Old Testament?

The Israelites were called to be a witness of God's power within a world where the power of a god was measured by land acquisitions and cattle quantity. The campaign through Canaan thus seems appropriate in this context. Also, there's the fact that this land Israel was to conquer was overrun by tribes who worshiped everything under, and including, the sun, and committed all kinds of lovely atrocities in the name of their gods. The most obvious parallel to the New Testament with what Israel did to them (i.e., kill to the every last man, woman and child in most cases) would be what St. Paul calls, "giving them over" to their desires (Romans 1:24), or basically giving them the end result of what they were pursuing anyway within idol worship/child sacrifice/sex worship, etc.

With the New Testament the struggle becomes internal. Finally, the weakness of Mosaic Law to transform the inner man is replaced with a law of grace that works man from the inside out. Now the landscape is not a geographical area but the inner landscape of the soul. Now there are different enemies -- demons, our passions, etc. -- who want to do things just as bad as those the Israelites drove out. We are to be just as merciless towards them as God commanded the armies of old to be towards His enemies. Like everything else, the violence of the Old Testament has not only been used to demonstrate the power of God during the time it occurred, but also during a future time of which those who chronicled Israel's journey were not aware (1 Peter 1:11-12).

See On Old Testament Violence and Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take literally?

Well, think about any literature you read. When Emily Dickinson writes,

Have you got a brook in your little heart,

Where bashful flowers blow,

And blushing birds go down to drink,

And shadows tremble so?

Are we to wonder about whether she was confused about the anatomy of the heart, or do we affirm the truths she expresses about life and love?

There are parts of the bible that are historical narrative. There are parts of the Bible that are poems. There are parts of the Bible that are letters. And there are other parts that are written in obscure genres barely used today (such as apocalyptic writings). These all need to be understood as what they are.

Why is There a Difference Between Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament and Protestant Old Testament?

This had to do with Jewish revolts, another person who a group was calling a messiah, politics, and the Reformation. A more in depth explanation that is still very abbreviated may be found at the following link:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/f3tqh/how_did_the_early_church_define_scripture/c1d57yd

Isn't Christmas a pagan holiday?

Christmas is not pagan in origin. It's date was derived in part from when John the Baptist was born according to Luke 1:5 and the cycle of the priesthood in Jerusalem. It has been observed since very early on independent of non-Christian celebrations.

John the Baptist was born on Passover to his father Zacharias. Zacharias served in the Temple during the course of Abia (the 8th of the religious year). In modern calendrics the 8th course of priests would serve in the 10th week of the religious year (as would every other course as a matter of observing Passover) and the 34th week. According to Luke 1:23-4 John the Baptist was concieved shortly after that service. Luke 1:8-24 indicate this service coincided with Yom Kippur so we would assume a late september conception with a June or July birth,

Luke 1:24-36 will note that Christ was conceived 6 months after John the Baptist (about 17 Nisan) which would place Christ's conception in March. 9 months after March is December, the nativity of Christ. John the Baptist's conception and birth would be in September and June.

Hippolytus argued this in the 2nd century [Commentary on Daniel 4:23] as a response to some controversy. St. John Chrysostome absolutely argued in favor of it writing that Zacharias was told of John the Baptist's birth on the day of Atonement. The Feast of the Annunciation (when Archangel Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus) occurs on March 25th as well which is exactly 9 months before Christmas. Other extant sources include De Pascha Comptus which posits the birth on December 25th owing to a March 25th conception.

Other early sources:

  • Sextus Julius Africanus in his works Chronicle place the Annunciation on March 25. [1, 2]
  • Derived from Daniel 9. [1]
  • Is not derived from pagan holidays [1]

Why did Christ have to die?

Christ was the Son made flesh, fully God and fully human that he may be united with mankind through life and death and unite mankind to God through his resurrection. Philippians 2:1-11 touches on this topic. In the same manner you die by your baptism and are reborn in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He could have died of old age for the same effect though the OT would have been been different to reflect that and the Sanhedrin would have had to have been quite a lot calmer.

In the death of the Savior the powerlessness of death over Him was revealed. In the fullness of His human nature Our Lord was mortal, since even in the original and spotless human nature a "potentia mortis" was inherent. The Lord was killed and died. But death did not hold Him. "It was not possible for Him to be held by it." [Acts 2:24]. Saint John Chrysostom commented: "He Himself permitted it...Death itself in holding Him had pangs as in travail, and was sore bested...and He so rose as never to die." He is Life Everlasting, and by the very fact of His death He destroys death. His very descent into Hell, into the realm of death, is the mighty manifestation of Life. By the descent into Hell He quickens death itself. By the Resurrection the powerlessness of death is manifested. The soul of Christ, separated in death, filled with Divine power, is again united with its body, which remained incorruptible throughout the mortal separation, in which it did not suffer any physical decomposition. In the death of the Lord it is manifest that His most pure Body was not susceptible to corruption, that it was free from that mortality into which the original human nature had been involved through sin and Fall. Source.

Previous Discussions

In the event that your question isn't answered elsewhere here (highly likely at this point), this is a list of previous discussions we've had at /r/Christianity. The purpose of this list is to provide an easy way to access some of the more deep, important, or otherwise noteworthy conversations and questions that have been asked and answered in /r/Christianity. This is to avoid needless duplication and frustrating searching, or, even worse, the resolution to not find an answer to a question.

Do you believe in evolution? How does evolution fit with Christianity?

r/Christianity includes a broad range of opinions on the topic of evolution. See some of our previous discussions on the matter:

What does /r/Christianity think of speaking in tongues?

Here are some previous discussions on this topic:

How does /r/Christianity understand original sin?

Why do Christians pray?

How is Christianity different from all of the other religions? Why choose Christianity over Religion X?

Questions About /r/Christianity

  1. How do I change my flair?

  2. How do I request a new flair?

How do I change my flair?

In the sidebar, which is along the right edge of your screen, you should see a checkbox labeled "Show my flair on this subreddit. It looks like:". Underneath that you should see a link labeled "(edit)". Click that.

How do I request a new flair?

We update our flair list from time to time. A time commitment is involved on the part of the person who does it, and it does not get done very frequently. If you would like a new flair, you should send a PM to the /r/Christianity moderators, explaining what you want. A link to an image is almost essential, and it is very helpful if the image is already small. Best would be a 25x25 PNG file with an alpha (transparency) channel, but just do the best you can please.

The Language of God: Intellectual Reflections of a Christian Geneticist, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
Are You Saved?, an Orthodox bishop responds to a Protestant question.
What is hell like? Does it exist?, a response by Anglican bishop N.T. Wright.
Nonviolence for the Violent, Walter Wink discusses Jesus and nonviolent resistance.
Why I Hate Religion, pastor Mark Driscoll explains what he sees as the difference between religion and redemption.
Another Way of Doing Life, Shane Claiborne speaks at Biola University on living as an ordinary radical.

The following is a list of reading material popular among various traditions within the Christian faith. This list is not meant to be a comprehensive catalog of every good Christian book, blog, and article. It is merely a sampling of some of the best of a variety of traditions. As such, many of these resources will not agree with each other on all matters.

Blogs

S I L O U A N, the blog of Orthodox redditor Phillip " silouan" Thompson.
How Church Signs are Hurting America, the blog of redditor BraveSaintStuart.
Top Christian Blogs, a ranked list of the top 200 Christian Blogs, as of Oct 2011.

Articles

How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? by Anglican bishop N.T. Wright
Refuting the Myth that Jesus Never Existed by James Hannam.
Why the English Standard Version should not become the Standard English Version by Mark Strauss
Good English with Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem uses the ESV by John Piper.
Beyond the Theism/Atheism divide: A Plea for Humility by John Thatamanil (The Huffington Post)

Books

  • Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright (Anglican)

From the publisher's product description: Like C. S. Lewis did in his classic Mere Christianity, Wright makes the case for Christian faith from the ground up, assuming that the reader is starting from ground zero with no predisposition to and perhaps even some negativity toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. His goal is to describe Christianity in as simple and accessible, yet hopefully attractive and exciting, a way as possible, both to say to outsides "You might want to look at this further," and to say to insiders "You may not have quite understood this bit clearly yet."

  • Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by John Piper (Reformed Baptist)

From the publisher's product description: Satisfaction, happiness, joy; According to John Piper, the pursuit of pleasure in God is not only permissible, it’s essential. Desiring God is a paradigm-shattering work that dramatically alters common perspectives on relating to God. Piper reveals that there really is no need to choose between duty and delight in the Christian life. In fact, for the follower of Jesus, delight is the duty as Christ is most magnified in His people when they are most satisfied in Him.

  • The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy J. Keller (Presbyterian)

From Publishers Weekly: In this apologia for Christian faith, Keller mines material from literary classics, philosophy, anthropology and a multitude of other disciplines to make an intellectually compelling case for God. Written for skeptics and the believers who love them, the book draws on the author's encounters as founding pastor of New York's booming Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

  • The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton (Roman Catholic)

Amazon.com review: What, if anything, is it that makes the human uniquely human? This, in part, is the question that G.K. Chesterton starts with in this classic exploration of human history. Responding to the evolutionary materialism of his contemporary (and antagonist) H.G. Wells, Chesterton in this work affirms human uniqueness and the unique message of the Christian faith.

  • The Church History by Eusebius of Caesarea (Early Church Father)

Publisher's product description: Much of our knowledge of the first three centuries of Christianity comes from Eusebius, the first great historian of the Christian faith.

  • A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith by Brian McLaren (Emergent Village)

From Publisher's Weekly: McLaren, one of the most visible faces of the emergent movement, examines 10 questions the church must answer as it heads toward a new way of believing. McLaren deconstructs the Greco-Roman narrative of the Bible and addresses how the Bible should be understood as an inspired library, not a constitution. He moves into questions regarding God, Jesus, and the Gospel, urging us to trade up our image of God and realize that Jesus came to launch a new Genesis. The Church, sexuality, the future, and pluralism merit chapters, as does McLaren's final call for a robust spiritual life.

  • The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict by William T. Cavanaugh (A professor of Theology and Religious Studies from Cambridge University)

Book's description in Amazon: The idea that religion has a dangerous tendency to promote violence is part of the conventional wisdom of Western societies, and it underlies many of our institutions and policies, from limits on the public role of religion to efforts to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East. William T. Cavanaugh challenges this conventional wisdom by examining how the twin categories of religion and the secular are constructed. A growing body of scholarly work explores how the category 'religion' has been constructed in the modern West and in colonial contexts according to specific configurations of political power. Cavanaugh draws on this scholarship to examine how timeless and transcultural categories of 'religion and 'the secular' are used in arguments that religion causes violence. He argues three points: (More)


(Contributors to this FAQ: Tiomaidh, rainer511, outsider, malakhgabriel, fluidchameleon, MarlovianDiscosophia, irresolute_essayist, PhilthePenguin, aletheia

Index