Theological question

[213374U]

*shrug* If you're determined to see it that way. The point is not that you should accept this as viable or 'reasonable' - but that God is not defined around being a bunch of 'un-'s, but is defined around a very focused set of core values and principles.

Yeah, yeah. A very focused set of core values and principles that we lowly humans aren't meant to examine or even comprehend. I got that the first 100 times I heard or read it. Mind you, I'm not saying that this invalid way of using reason to "explain" something unreasonable means that the idea of God is absurd. Discussing it, however, IS absurd and pointless, for the moment at least.

 

It's not that I've chosen to see it this way. It's that the gift of faith hasn't been granted to me. And I can't seem to switch my brain off, for some reason.

[Gromnir]

Actually, acording to the Gospel of St. John, God is the Logos so I'd argue that God can't exist outside of logic.

 

 

 

Key point is, God isn't 'lawless'. God does have rules and order and a logic of his own (i.e. the logos in the bible). The point is not that God is outside human logic, the point is that God has divine logic and it takes precedence for Christians (and I guess Muslims?). Maybe that's still not palatable at all for some. That's fine. I'm not exactly a no-turning-back born-again devout believer myself, more trying it out. I just think "God doesn't make sense according to contemporary logic" isn't really a valid reason for dismissing him.

 

 

there is an argument that old testament (particularly genesis) was written by Hebrew scholars to show that God/The Universe were chaotic and unpredictable. why does God place the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden and then tell human not to eat the fruit? why does Noah curse Canaan? why does God task Job? etc. given the similarity 'tween hebrew genesis and the babylonia creation and flood myths, it is plausible to read old testament in a similar light. the tigris and euphrates flooded at irregular intervals, bringing both life and destruction. by comparison, the nile valley flooded at regular intervals and as such the egyptian creation myths and gods were far more predictable. regardless, hebrew scholars choose to adopt/adapt a myth similar to the babylonian chaos model. old testament God were not always humanity's friend, as such, there were no need for an Adversary. as bible grows beyond Genesis, and particularly with the coming o' the new testament and christianity, the notion of a Benign and Loving God takes root. A capricious God not need a Satan counterpart, but a God-Is-Love deity resulted in a metaphysical vacuum which needed to be filled. Satan were thrown into the void. of course, such a reading is not possible if you needs to make all books o' the bible harmonious as opposed to recognizing an evolution.

 

is just one interp...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 8, 2010 by Gromnir

[Tigranes]

Numbers: fair enough. As I say, I continue to try out the church and Christianity but can't seem to work out how that leap of faith works, so I'm not the one to say.

 

I don't know, there very very clearly is an evolution / shift from OT to NT, i.e. God is meant to be timeless and always the same, but in fact there is a recognition that Jesus' resurrection was a 'landmark' event rooted in the temporal order of things and has apparently changed everything. Some point to the very skilfully scattered and integrated bits of the messiac prophecies in the OT to argue that it is harmonious and planned, but following Grommy's interp, they also seem to emerge from a historical foundation; i.e. after Moses' books, which under any interpretation are written retrospectively in a 'how things came to be this way' way, Israel goes through a lot of tough times, get invaded and all sorts, and that's when we get more future-oriented, looking for the messiah. It could equally work either way...

[LH000]

So according to my friend mentioned before, question whether angels do have free will is (probably) not explicitly stated in catholic catechism/dogmatism, nor is it (explicitly) mentioned in Bible. But it seems that more common opinion would be that they do have it, as some passages in Bible seem to indicate it (for example more-less what is written in your post). It should be also noted that concept of angels (as real beings) is far from being central in catholic (christian) religion. It could probably be theologically advocated that Satan/angels are not real (for example being just symbols) as opposite to advocate Jesus Christ to be merely a symbol, which would be heresy. This is probably reason why this question (of angels free will) isn't addressed.

 

Don't take what I have written as definite thing (I am even little drunk while writing this...), just be aware that one of premises of your original post is quite possibly wrong.

[Orogun01]

So according to my friend mentioned before, question whether angels do have free will is (probably) not explicitly stated in catholic catechism/dogmatism, nor is it (explicitly) mentioned in Bible. But it seems that more common opinion would be that they do have it, as some passages in Bible seem to indicate it (for example more-less what is written in your post). It should be also noted that concept of angels (as real beings) is far from being central in catholic (christian) religion. It could probably be theologically advocated that Satan/angels are not real (for example being just symbols) as opposite to advocate Jesus Christ to be merely a symbol, which would be heresy. This is probably reason why this question (of angels free will) isn't addressed.

 

Don't take what I have written as definite thing (I am even little drunk while writing this...), just be aware that one of premises of your original post is quite possibly wrong.

I'm going to play the fundamentalist here and pick apart every word from your post. The Catholic church went out of the way to develop both the fields of angelology and demonology, to say that they think that they are symbols would contradict themselves. Maybe this was merely just one person's opinion, unless is declared by the hierarchy of the Church is not declared to be so.

Also, the New Testament features more demons that the Old; Jesus goes everywhere exorcising demons and healing cripples. There is also a references to the Key of Solomon in the New Testament which was a mystical know who of the demon world.

It just seems weird that every religion which has advocated the existence of demons would assume a relatively new perspective; specially Catholicism which tied to the old ways than most Christian religions.

[Hurlshort]

The Catholic church didn't develop the field of demonology, they simply used the almost universal beliefs in evil spirits and then tied those concepts to Christianity. The bible is suitably vague enough when it comes to demons that it doesn't matter whether it was originally supposed to be symbolic or real, the fact is a real demon is a lot more powerful then a metaphorical one.

[LH000]

So according to my friend mentioned before, question whether angels do have free will is (probably) not explicitly stated in catholic catechism/dogmatism, nor is it (explicitly) mentioned in Bible. But it seems that more common opinion would be that they do have it, as some passages in Bible seem to indicate it (for example more-less what is written in your post). It should be also noted that concept of angels (as real beings) is far from being central in catholic (christian) religion. It could probably be theologically advocated that Satan/angels are not real (for example being just symbols) as opposite to advocate Jesus Christ to be merely a symbol, which would be heresy. This is probably reason why this question (of angels free will) isn't addressed.

 

Don't take what I have written as definite thing (I am even little drunk while writing this...), just be aware that one of premises of your original post is quite possibly wrong.

I'm going to play the fundamentalist here and pick apart every word from your post. The Catholic church went out of the way to develop both the fields of angelology and demonology, to say that they think that they are symbols would contradict themselves. Maybe this was merely just one person's opinion, unless is declared by the hierarchy of the Church is not declared to be so.

Also, the New Testament features more demons that the Old; Jesus goes everywhere exorcising demons and healing cripples. There is also a references to the Key of Solomon in the New Testament which was a mystical know who of the demon world.

It just seems weird that every religion which has advocated the existence of demons would assume a relatively new perspective; specially Catholicism which tied to the old ways than most Christian religions.

 

As I said, I'm surely not well versed in catholic theology nor in it's history and I do not really know what you think by "developing fields of angelology and demonology". If you thought something like they have "exorcist office" or something and things inevitable connected to such estabilishment than you could be wrong. Studying some field and even developing it doesn't mean that one must insist on that object of the field is well specified or even (don't have to insist it to be) real.

 

Also, as I said, Church hasn't declared that angels are just symbols, neither has it declared opposite.

 

To your claims that New Testament features demons: Here I can just allibistically state (as my knowledge of it is vague) that person I was referring to has quite a good knowledge (thought it doesn't mean that he is an expert, it's no more his field of interest) of both Bible and catholic theology. If existence of real angels would be so evident, he would probably know.

[Walsingham]

*shrug* If you're determined to see it that way. The point is not that you should accept this as viable or 'reasonable' - but that God is not defined around being a bunch of 'un-'s, but is defined around a very focused set of core values and principles.

 

I have to say I see Numbers' point, Tigs. having God sometimes intelligible is certainly more conforting than God being always incomprehensible, but it IS effectively a cop out. If x doesn't make sense in human terms then x defaults to 'mysterious ways'. There is no limit to the range of items which can obey this rule for x.

[Orogun01]

The Catholic church didn't develop the field of demonology, they simply used the almost universal beliefs in evil spirits and then tied those concepts to Christianity. The bible is suitably vague enough when it comes to demons that it doesn't matter whether it was originally supposed to be symbolic or real, the fact is a real demon is a lot more powerful then a metaphorical one.

During the Middle ages a series of books were made by the Catholic church on the subject of demons. Assigning demons for every sin and developing Hell's hierarchy, among them the famous Devil Codex.

The Bible itself doesn't acknowledge or disavow the existence of demons (although alludes to their presence) But from every religion comes a mystical or fundamental variation of it that seeks to explain all the holes within the Bible. Just remember that the Bible is a series of books that became canon in order to have an unified Christian church; for more info see the Nicaean council. A lot of these fundamentalist/mystic books were left out because they were considered either blasphemous or irrelevant to the general public. Yet these mystical traditions are still recognized and have influenced modern religion.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Okay, put your weirdness goggles on...

 

Okay, I go pretty much by personal experience as many of you guys know. First off, I have already died once and I didn't come across any afterlife. How did I die? Had the measles and chicken pox at the same time when I was five, and my body temp got too high. Clinically dead for a minute or three and was brought back thanks to a quick thinking doctor and a tub of ice. Second, I have had what one can call a religious experience. That was a about 7 years later, when I was lost in the woods of a park outside my hometown. Met God. Wasn't impressed. Moved on. Lastly, when I was up at Morningside College in Sioux City I came across a demon, devil, whatever you call it. It tried to tempt me to do something I rather not discuss, but I shrugged. Wasn't too impressed by it either.

 

Sure this may sound like the ravings of a delusional bugger that has too much salt on the brain, sauteed in butter, but those are so far my religious experiences. If only I can get rid of this constant feeling of deja vu I would be much better off.

[Orogun01]

Okay, put your weirdness goggles on...

 

Okay, I go pretty much by personal experience as many of you guys know. First off, I have already died once and I didn't come across any afterlife. How did I die? Had the measles and chicken pox at the same time when I was five, and my body temp got too high. Clinically dead for a minute or three and was brought back thanks to a quick thinking doctor and a tub of ice. Second, I have had what one can call a religious experience. That was a about 7 years later, when I was lost in the woods of a park outside my hometown. Met God. Wasn't impressed. Moved on. Lastly, when I was up at Morningside College in Sioux City I came across a demon, devil, whatever you call it. It tried to tempt me to do something I rather not discuss, but I shrugged. Wasn't too impressed by it either.

 

Sure this may sound like the ravings of a delusional bugger that has too much salt on the brain, sauteed in butter, but those are so far my religious experiences. If only I can get rid of this constant feeling of deja vu I would be much better off.

The mystical experience can't be denied nor confirmed, only known personally.

[Walsingham]

The mystical experience can't be denied nor confirmed, only known personally.

 

I don't wish to be rude, but that's balls. I had a friend at university who thought he saw God, then the next day he saw Jesus and Jesus told him to straighten out his life.

 

In both cases the subject had drunk upwards of eight strong lagers and smoked three 'buckets' of marijuana.

 

that's not a religious experience, it's a drug induced experience.

[Orogun01]

The mystical experience can't be denied nor confirmed, only known personally.

 

I don't wish to be rude, but that's balls. I had a friend at university who thought he saw God, then the next day he saw Jesus and Jesus told him to straighten out his life.

 

In both cases the subject had drunk upwards of eight strong lagers and smoked three 'buckets' of marijuana.

 

that's not a religious experience, it's a drug induced experience.

You said it yourself, it nor religious is drug induced. BTW, Jesus gave your friend some good advice.

[Hurlshort]

While it may help, not all religious people are drunk and stoned.

[Walsingham]

Coming back to this thread I'm getting the message that everybody must get stoned.

[Gorth]

Testimonies of spiritual experiences

[Orogun01]

Coming back to this thread I'm getting the message that everybody must get stoned.

Actually most mystics would vehemently forbid it, since mind altering substances turn you away form the true path to enlightenment. Or so i'm told.

But this is going from a theological discussion to a hippiefest, let's go back to the Devil.

 

Drawing comparison from other cultures, it seems that the "tempting of Christ" and the whole antagonistic relationship is parallel to Buddha conquering Mara and reaching enlightenment. Except that this was 6 centuries BC, nonetheless temptation and sin (and the Devil who embodies them) are associated with physical needs. Buddhism prominently is an attempt to gain control of the "self" in order to reach nirvana. Which means that the biggest obstacles are of physical nature. Another parallel here; the gnostic text feature the same message, of Christ being the son of man and the true Messiah being trapped inside the body of flesh.

 

During Christ's times Satan hadn't been elevated to the position of King of Hell and could well be just an embodiment of the Temptations that Christ had to face. It was later through the popularization of Christianity that Satan went from temptation to King of Hell (kudos to his PR department) Is through this that evil gets a face and the archetype of the DemonKing is born.

[Blank]

I think Satan is the ruler of earth until Christ comes back, but nobody rules hell. Satan will be put there to be punished in the end, not rule it.

 

Ephesians 2:

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.

 

Ephesians 6:

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

John 12: (after Jesus had prayed and God sent His voice)

30Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

 

31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

 

32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

 

Revelation 20:

10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

[Walsingham]

Sorry. I don't see the relevance of John 12.

[Gfted1]

Revelation 20:

10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

Huh, I thought the "devil" and the "beast" were one in the same. If the devil has yet to be thrown into the lake of burning sulfur (because Revelations hasnt happened yet) then who/what is the "beast". Also, who is the "false prophet"?

[Orogun01]

Revelation 20:

10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

Huh, I thought the "devil" and the "beast" were one in the same. If the devil has yet to be thrown into the lake of burning sulfur (because Revelations hasnt happened yet) then who/what is the "beast". Also, who is the "false prophet"?

The false prophet is the Antichrist and I can't believe you haven't heard of the beast! 666, Iron Maiden, ring a bell? Anyway, the Beast has many interpretations many link it to different religious organizations, such as the Roman church and the papacy. Oh and you aren't wrong the devil is the beast (dragon) is just that the bible has metaphorical beasts by the thousands.

[Blank]

Sorry. I don't see the relevance of John 12.

I was referring to the fact that Jesus acknowledged Satan is the current ruler of the world, whereas when he goes to hell it will be for his punishment.

[Walsingham]

Sorry. I don't see the relevance of John 12.

I was referring to the fact that Jesus acknowledged Satan is the current ruler of the world, whereas when he goes to hell it will be for his punishment.

 

Gotcha.