Jump to content

Your Understanding of Christianity?


A. Sterling

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Is there anything in the bible about Satan's motivations?  (I don't know - so asking)

Not in the genesis story. The genesis stories don't actually even mention Satan and later people decided that the serpent was Satan although it might not have been. Later parts of the Bible talk about Satan in different ways. From my understanding his motivations are often talked about by other people as him being the fore that seeks to draw individuals away from God and condemn them to hell. Some OT stories have God and Satan talking to each other, sort of bargaining with each other like the one (I forget which book) where Satan asks God for permission to "test" this one guy by destroying everything in his life and Gods kinda like "yeah, sure, but you won't succeed". Later we see him interact with Jesus in the desert trying to "tempt" him in different ways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:46 PM, EasternMagic said:

Symbolically, isn't it the same thing?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, EasternMagic said:

I don't know, I am just going by the symbology of Satan. In Paradise Lost, for example. Why does Satan act the way he does, why does he sabotage God? Because he feels slighted and he didn't want to submit to authority. Nothing wrong with not wanting to submit, but spending the rest of eternity sabotaging authority and rejecting it just to spite it doesn't really get anyone anywhere.

Well to be fair Paradise Lost is sorta like old Bible fanfic in which Satan is reimagined in a very positive light.  I think it's the first instance of the "hot Satan" interpretation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Technically, the serpent.  There is no mention of Satan in that text.  Later texts overlay a satanic theology onto that passage.  Beware of reading one's later narrative understandings (from popular culture, or later texts, etc) into the original. :)

Right, I think I mentioned at some other point. I guess it's just a habit to say Satan in that story. It's good to clarify that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Paradise Lost is a cracking read! :). Satan is definitely the best character :)

100%. I love that book!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:56 PM, EasternMagic said:

The symbology of the serpent is that its poison can both heal and kill.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 7:03 PM, EasternMagic said:

A bit of both. I'm into spirituality

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, uhtred said:

 He demands a willingness for human sacrifice, though he doesn't let it be carried through.

 

That was the purpose of the story. Human sacrifices were NOT to be part of this new way of thinking (a theme that is continued throughout much of the OT) and this was a graphic way of getting the point across.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, EasternMagic said:

I don't know, I am just going by the symbology of Satan. In Paradise Lost, for example. Why does Satan act the way he does, why does he sabotage God? Because he feels slighted and he didn't want to submit to authority. Nothing wrong with not wanting to submit, but spending the rest of eternity sabotaging authority and rejecting it just to spite it doesn't really get anyone anywhere.

 

I'm not a Christian by the way, or a Satanist.

I agree that later interpretations of Satan do show him as wholly evil, but I was looking at the original.  Even in Paradise Lost, Satan is a somewhat sympathetic character, at least early on. 

 

A fun read is Stephen Brust's "to reign in hell" which is a fun fantasy read and also presents a very different interpretation of the war of the angels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, A. Sterling said:

 

 

 Of course to be more specific about this, the story goes that Satan convinced Adam and Eve to eat the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is markedly different from knowledge itself. Presumably, it introduced the ability to question and think about the ethical nature of things specifically. I think the story is generally saying that without the ability to question that people would be good by default but by questioning it they are able to draw the wrong conclusions. My understanding of the fable is not that Adam and Eve were previously unable to investigate scientific pursuits or other such forms of knowledge, only that they could not (had no reason to?) question ethics.

Could be.  The story is very short, and its not clear what "knowledge" meant to the writers.   I've seen it as god keeping Adam and Even in a state of ignorance (though whether of science or morality is not clear), and Satan trying to uplift them to true sapience.    Lots of other ways to interpret though. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, starweb said:

That was the purpose of the story. Human sacrifices were NOT to be part of this new way of thinking (a theme that is continued throughout much of the OT) and this was a graphic way of getting the point across.

 

 

But he demands that Abraham be *willing* to sacrifice his child. God stops him only when he is about to do it.  To me, requiring your servants to demonstrate a true willingness to sacrifice their children is evil, even if you don't actually require them to carry it out.   Could you really have faulted Abraham if he had refused the order,  "I will not sacrifice my child to you, even though your are the creator, and have the power to destroy me. If you want my child dead, YOU kill him". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, A. Sterling said:

Not in the genesis story. The genesis stories don't actually even mention Satan and later people decided that the serpent was Satan although it might not have been. Later parts of the Bible talk about Satan in different ways. From my understanding his motivations are often talked about by other people as him being the fore that seeks to draw individuals away from God and condemn them to hell. Some OT stories have God and Satan talking to each other, sort of bargaining with each other like the one (I forget which book) where Satan asks God for permission to "test" this one guy by destroying everything in his life and Gods kinda like "yeah, sure, but you won't succeed". Later we see him interact with Jesus in the desert trying to "tempt" him in different ways. 

The story of Job is the one where God takes away everything Jobe owns to test his faith and prove his point to Satan.  OK so far, but the problem is that what God takes away are Job's *wife and children*.  He kills innocents to make a point.  If he had simply taken Job's wealth, I would have had no problem with the story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, uhtred said:

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, uhtred said:

But he demands that Abraham be *willing* to sacrifice his child. God stops him only when he is about to do it.  To me, requiring your servants to demonstrate a true willingness to sacrifice their children is evil, even if you don't actually require them to carry it out.   Could you really have faulted Abraham if he had refused the order,  "I will not sacrifice my child to you, even though your are the creator, and have the power to destroy me. If you want my child dead, YOU kill him". 

For the record, I'm not a Bible literalist. I'm interested in the philosophical and spiritual truths behind the stories. 

 

What you have presented is a completely valid way of looking at it, but apparently according to the Jewish writers of the NT, Abraham believed that since Issac was the child of promise, even if he did kill him, he had faith that God would raise him up again.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 7:17 PM, uhtred said:

Could you really have faulted Abraham if he had refused the order,  "I will not sacrifice my child to you, even though your are the creator, and have the power to destroy me. If you want my child dead, YOU kill him". 

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, uhtred said:

Could be.  The story is very short, and its not clear what "knowledge" meant to the writers.   I've seen it as god keeping Adam and Even in a state of ignorance (though whether of science or morality is not clear), and Satan trying to uplift them to true sapience.    Lots of other ways to interpret though. 

 

 

The verse calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" Genesis 2:9. And God said "“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”" Genesis 2:16-17. So in the context of the story we know it is specifically knowledge of good and evil at least. Our understanding of what knowledge of good and evil includes could be faulty though. It could also be said that rather than imposing punishment upon Adam and Eve God is stating the natural consequence of eating the fruit. I've heard it told this way as well, that he did not punish them but informed them of the natural effect of eating it. Of course, this is subject to the criticism of why God created that tree in the first place but if it is an allegory and we take the existence of good and evil to have already existed (because it states that God knows the difference between the two) then perhaps the idea is that these are two forces which already existed. Of course there are problems with that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, starweb said:

What you have presented is a completely valid way of looking at it, but apparently according to the Jewish writers of the NT, Abraham believed that since Issac was the child of promise, even if he did kill him, he had faith that God would raise him up again.  

That is actually an interesting point since there were branches of Judaism that believed in a mass resurrection which would occur on earth with people's actual earthly bodies. (I think this is similar to what Paul also believed) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, starweb said:

 

For the record, I'm not a Bible literalist. I'm interested in the philosophical and spiritual truths behind the stories. 

 

What you have presented is a completely valid way of looking at it, but apparently according to the Jewish writers of the NT, Abraham believed that since Issac was the child of promise, even if he did kill him, he had faith that God would raise him up again.  

 

 

I didn't know that interpretation. If got promised that the child would be raised, the is a different (though still interesting) situation. A little surprising in that case he didn't let Abraham go through with it.  Does God raise anyone from the dead in the bible, or is it only Jesus? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

No.  The 'correct' moral answer (I believe) is, 'No' - but this gets very complex and is more to do with moral epistemology rather the character of God (it's always more likely that the being asking you to do such an act is not God than the real omnibenevolent God would demand child sacrifice). 

 

But that's not how the story (whether historical or not) is functioning (as starweb nicely explains).   

 

Of course, Christinity complicates matters with its theological overlay on top (The Father sacrificing His Son, Jesus). :)

Yes the sacrifice of Jesus is interesting.  Actually sacrifice of children seems to be something of a theme in the bible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A. Sterling said:

The verse calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" Genesis 2:9. And God said "“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”" Genesis 2:16-17. So in the context of the story we know it is specifically knowledge of good and evil at least. Our understanding of what knowledge of good and evil includes could be faulty though. It could also be said that rather than imposing punishment upon Adam and Eve God is stating the natural consequence of eating the fruit. I've heard it told this way as well, that he did not punish them but informed them of the natural effect of eating it. Of course, this is subject to the criticism of why God created that tree in the first place but if it is an allegory and we take the existence of good and evil to have already existed (because it states that God knows the difference between the two) then perhaps the idea is that these are two forces which already existed. Of course there are problems with that too.

The allegorical view makes sense as eating from the tree looses the innocence of ignorance. (I don't mean that to be as negative as it sounds - but innocence is in a way closely coupled to lack of knowledge - and often knowledge leads to unhappiness). 

 

Would you eat from the tree given the choice?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A. Sterling said:

That is actually an interesting point since there were branches of Judaism that believed in a mass resurrection which would occur on earth with people's actual earthly bodies. (I think this is similar to what Paul also believed) 

The medieval and early renaissance versions of the Resurrection at the end of times were rather disturbing by modern standards.  Its people's ORIGINAL BODIES rising from the ground - as depicted in a number of paintings, including I think the  dome for Florence cathedral. 

 

It was toned down a lot by later artists to keep it from looking to much like.. well.. a zombie apocalypse. (which could be stretched to support a less than favorable view, when you see Jesus leading an army of zombies to fight the forces of the antichrist....)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Both, IMHO.  The ideology was essential in as a pre-cursor to many other aspects of Western civilisation, from the trivial (writing the year) to the more profound (playing, arguably, a part in the development of science).  Obviously, ideologies only exist within the minds and behaviour of people though, so maybe we're just talking about the same thing :)

The Catholic Church suppressed the development of science until approximately 400 years ago.   Early-middle Islam played the main role in scientific exploration.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, uhtred said:

I didn't know that interpretation. If got promised that the child would be raised, the is a different (though still interesting) situation. A little surprising in that case he didn't let Abraham go through with it.  Does God raise anyone from the dead in the bible, or is it only Jesus? 

 

 

Jesus does raise a couple people. Lazarus comes to mind off the bat. With a quick search in google I compiled a list of people raised from death through the power of God in the Bible (most of these aren't by Jesus): The widow of Zarephath's son (1 King 17:17-24), the Shunammite woman's son (2 Kings 4:18-37), an Israelite man (2 Kings 13:20–21), the widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:11–17), Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:49–56), Tabitha (Acts 9:36-42), and Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12). Although I don't think there was precedent for it in practice in Abraham's time. (Then again, there may have been other stories in play that we don't have now.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, uhtred said:

Would you eat from the tree given the choice?  

Interesting question. I think it would depend on my current life situation. If, in Eden, I had access to all scientific and natural knowledge, all cultural, linguistic, and spiritual understanding; obviously not. If the fruit truly just gave me knowledge of a distinction between what is good and bad but without it I only did good anyway it wouldn't be logical to eat it. The effect of the fruit as it appears to me in the Bible is that they gain knowledge of trivial rule sorts of things so it is more of a concept of law (and therefore shame and self-doubt, etc.) that they gain rather than intelligence. If I was in theory a dumb creature before the fruit and could not pursue true knowledge at all, I would eat it. I strongly believe that all knowledge is good knowledge (in the world as it is I believe it is important to master the theory of knowledge of good and evil and so gathering all perspectives and ideologies is vital), but if the world was not subject to harm and people could not hurt one another but were free the pursue knowledge in a purer form without the hinderance of potential ethical transgression and so on, I would not eat the fruit. It all depends on your understanding of the idealized world "before the fall" and the nature of what knowledge of good and evil is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 12:13 AM, Sally said:

The Catholic Church suppressed the development of science until approximately 400 years ago.   Early-middle Islam played the main role in scientific exploration

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A. Sterling said:

Interesting question. I think it would depend on my current life situation. If, in Eden, I had access to all scientific and natural knowledge, all cultural, linguistic, and spiritual understanding; obviously not. If the fruit truly just gave me knowledge of a distinction between what is good and bad but without it I only did good anyway it wouldn't be logical to eat it. The effect of the fruit as it appears to me in the Bible is that they gain knowledge of trivial rule sorts of things so it is more of a concept of law (and therefore shame and self-doubt, etc.) that they gain rather than intelligence. If I was in theory a dumb creature before the fruit and could not pursue true knowledge at all, I would eat it. I strongly believe that all knowledge is good knowledge (in the world as it is I believe it is important to master the theory of knowledge of good and evil and so gathering all perspectives and ideologies is vital), but if the world was not subject to harm and people could not hurt one another but were free the pursue knowledge in a purer form without the hinderance of potential ethical transgression and so on, I would not eat the fruit. It all depends on your understanding of the idealized world "before the fall" and the nature of what knowledge of good and evil is.

I guess it depends on what knowledge is contained. The story is so old and the language so changed that it is difficult to interpret in detail.  In general though, there are very few cases where I would turn down knowledge.  I don't want to be "innocent", I want to be part of mankind's attempt to rise and become like god, not merely serve him.  (but then pride has always been my favorite sin). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I don't thnk it's as simple as that, though some suppression did occur and Islam was essential in the development too.  Christianity played a key role in the development of many things in the West, including science - though that doesn't mean Islam didn't also :)

 

There's some good material on the debates around faith/science, including the ways of looking at the historical influences (including specific misrepresentations, like the Galilleo affair or the Huxley/Wilberforce debate) at the Cambridge Uni Faraday Institute webpage :)

 

Also, it's entirely possible to both suppress something and be the cause of that things development at the same time, or at different times.  And we should also differentiate between Christianity as a broad set of ideas and Catholicism as a particular institutional manifestation of those ideas.  The ideas that were being suppressed often grew up within Christendom because, in part, of Christianity! :)

I've mostly seen Christianity as suppressing science until well into the renaissance.  Until probably 1500, Christian Europe was rather far behind scientifically. The Islamic world and China at various times were mostly in the lead, with the Maya also being quite advanced at some times. 

 

OTOH Christianity was a strong organizing force and that organization was helpful for what science the church didn't suppress. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A. Sterling said:

Interesting question. I think it would depend on my current life situation. If, in Eden, I had access to all scientific and natural knowledge, all cultural, linguistic, and spiritual understanding; obviously not. If the fruit truly just gave me knowledge of a distinction between what is good and bad but without it I only did good anyway it wouldn't be logical to eat it. The effect of the fruit as it appears to me in the Bible is that they gain knowledge of trivial rule sorts of things so it is more of a concept of law (and therefore shame and self-doubt, etc.) that they gain rather than intelligence. If I was in theory a dumb creature before the fruit and could not pursue true knowledge at all, I would eat it. I strongly believe that all knowledge is good knowledge (in the world as it is I believe it is important to master the theory of knowledge of good and evil and so gathering all perspectives and ideologies is vital), but if the world was not subject to harm and people could not hurt one another but were free the pursue knowledge in a purer form without the hinderance of potential ethical transgression and so on, I would not eat the fruit. It all depends on your understanding of the idealized world "before the fall" and the nature of what knowledge of good and evil is.

An interesting side question is what "science" would mean in Eden.  It seems to have been a very artificial place - isolated from normal biology, evolution, and probably meteorology.  It was sort of like a little slice of heaven reserved for two humans - and with those artificial rules, its not clear what science means. 

 

Another question is what Adam and Eve *did* in Eden? How did they spend their time? What was there to talk about or think about? For a modern human I think Eden would be a prison - but of course modern humans have lost the innocence that made Eden desirable for Adam and Eve. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 6:20 AM, uhtred said:

I've mostly seen Christianity as suppressing science until well into the renaissance.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uhtred said:

I've mostly seen Christianity as suppressing science until well into the renaissance.  Until probably 1500, Christian Europe was rather far behind scientifically. The Islamic world and China at various times were mostly in the lead, with the Maya also being quite advanced at some times. 

 

OTOH Christianity was a strong organizing force and that organization was helpful for what science the church didn't suppress. 

 

 

And to be fair Europe, particularly the British Isles, had a much later starting point than the others so it makes sense that they wouldn't be as advanced. They still caught up pretty quickly considering. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...