WagesofSin

I got this off of www.dancingjesus.com , but I didn't write it.


"Submitted for your approval...

(Before reading this, know that this article contains edgy material that may or maynot offend you. I'm not a satanist or a practicing catholic, although I was a catholic at one time. Im just a man who likes to instigate conversation)

According to the bible, Lucifer (meaning "morning star" or "light bringer" for the uncouth) was once an angel in god's kingdom. He was even beloved by god himself. But, he tried to stage a coup and was banished forever. There he resides in hell, doing what Lucifer does, tempting people or something. Also in this book is the story of Adam and eve who eat the fruit of knowledge and suffer the consequence of humans being sent away from paradise forever.

Now, here's the kicker... (cont....)

God is banishing the ones who seek knowledge or "bring light" in Lucifer's case. So, is idealized religion following someone else blindly? Is seeking knowledge evil? Am I talking complete shit?

Also, the idea of a centralized evil didn't appear until the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God did all of his own dirty work. He flooded the world, turned people into salt, destroyed cities and caused widespread confusion, not to say we didn't deserve it (Noah's ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the tower of Babel, respectively)

So yet another question, Is religion adulterated by Man? (Most certainly yes) Is the devil a mortal idea and not a divine truth? "

I feel that religion does indeed preach ignorance to its followers. By releasing the chains of religion we open up to the world of free thought. No longer is our reasoning limited to religious beliefs.


Oh, and if this was already posted:Meh, I couldn't find anything about it through the search button, so blah!

Bill

This is one of those issues that divides Christians from Christians. Universalism, as a Christian dogma, is far broader than just the Unitarian-Universalist Church. The essence of Universalism is that there is no Hell (and thus, do devil).

To other "brands" of Christianity, there is a Hell (which is defined as "self-separation from God"), but again, there is no devil (there is no devil because there is no torture, etc.; only "separation").

All of these different ideas of Hell, devil, and so forth are all based upon the exact same holy text; or at least, some rational theme or variation thereof. It is just that each distinct sect of Christianity has its own particular interpretation of that selfsame text, and this leads to (or derives from; take your choice) the different dogmas of the different sects of Christianity.

All of this contributes to the idea that there are really no definable core beliefs to Christianity. Just about every idea you could assert as a "core belief" has been disbelieved by at least one sect which has derived itself from Christianity. To put it another way, "nothing is sacred."

== Bill

SlateGreySky

If I may, I'd like to try and respond to both of the preceding posts.

I wonder if it is not incorrect to assume that a "sect which has derived itself from Christianity" is the same thing as a "Christian denomination." In fact, one of the oldest still-in-use non-Biblical statements of Christian theology is the Apostles' Creed (with which you no doubt are familiar). With the tenets of the Apostles' Creed, no Christian denomination disagrees. There are, then, "core beliefs" held by all Christian churches. To assert otherwise is to deny the gravity of the term "Christianity." This is why, strictly speaking, there can be no such thing as, for example, a "Theravada Buddhist Christian." All this is to say that if we're going to center our belief/disbelief in Christianity on any one ideology, we need to make sure that said ideology is well-defined. The Apostles' Creed is one simple, clean, and nearly universally-accepted way to do this.

Implicit in the Apostles' Creed is the idea of a hell ("[Jesus] descended into hell"). Nowhere does the Creed detail this "hell;" there are multiple (orthodox) variants on whether this hell is a place, a state of being, eternal, etc. In the Christian church, there has long been and is still a lot of debate on whether such things as the "lake of fire" described in the book of Revelation is to be equated with "hell" of the Creed, but it is clear that for orthodox (lowercase "o") Christianity, "hell" must exist in some sense.

For Christians who believe that the Bible is (in some sense) the inspired and inerrant word of God, the existence of the devil is a divine truth (albeit a truth that, as many Christians admit, may not be fully understood through mortal ideas). This is to say that if your definition of "Christian" includes, "one who believes that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God," then a "Christian" will believe that the existence of the devil is a divine truth (i.e. a truth revealed to man by God).

This is just untrue. Read your Old Testament (specifically, the books of Genesis and Job). While you may be able to argue that the idea of a "centralized evil" (whatever that means) metamorphoses over the course of thousands of years of Jewish tradition, it is clear that since the beginning of that (scriptural) tradition, an evil force antithetical to the designs of God has been presumed to exist.

Not true. Much of the common Christian's beliefs about the devil and hell are based more on Milton than on the Bible. Medieval and Renaissance literature is full of stories about angelology, demonology, and the "fall of Lucifer." At a most liberal interpretation, the Bible only speaks very metaphorically about any "fall from heaven."

Not exactly true. The essence of universalism is that every soul eventually enjoys the presence of the glory of God (read: every soul is eventually "saved"). The emphasis here is on "eventually." Some variations of universalism may affirm the existence of a hell, but deny that such a place of suffering is eternal. This would be tantamount to somewhat of a hell-as-purgatory view.

What do you mean by "adulterated?" If you mean, "does religion bear some of the characteristics of its mortal founders?" then of course the answer is "yes." If, however, you mean, "is religion strictly a product of man's overactive imagination?" then I think that's a different question entirely.

What, then, are the "chains of religion," and how would you describe the world of "free thought?" Is "free thought" just "non-religious thought?" If so, it seems to me that you are begging the question. The idea that the reasoning of a religious person is limited by his religious beliefs is a bit of a false (implied) dichotomy: if the reasoning of a religious person is limited by his beliefs, why wouldn't the reasoning of a sports fan be limited by his fandom, or the reasoning of a musician limited by his appreciation for music? In what way would you say that religion "limits" reasoning? Logic is, after all, not a collection of facts; rather, it is a manner of organizing those facts according to the forms of language.

Any responses?

Steven Carr

Interestingly, the Apostles Creed says nothing at all about salvation. It seems salvation , and/or what must be done to achieve salvation is not a core belief of Christianity.

Indeed, even the Trinity is not in the Apostles Creed. The Holy Spirit is mentioned, but never claimed to be a god.

SlateGreySky

What makes you infer this from the mere fact that the Apostles' Creed is silent on the subject? I think you'd need to add the premise that "The Apostles' Creed is the only source for core beliefs of Christianty," and this is a premise that neither of us would grant, I think.

Right you are. Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century) is the first documented source of the word trius referring to the triune Godhead, and the concept is taken up by both Tertullian and Origen. Again, though, I don't mean to assert that the Apostles' Creed is the only source for core beliefs of Christianity; just that it's one major and early compiler of many of the core beliefs.

Steven Carr

This claim that Christians agree on the Apostles Creed, while having minor differences over the terms 'hell' 'everlasting life', 'forgiveness of sins' etc , reminds me of the fundamental agreement between East and West during the Cold War.

Both the Federal Republic of German and the German Democratic Republic upheld the rule of democracy. Indeed, the DDR believed in democracy so much they put the word in their name.

True, there were debates over the meaning of the word 'democracy', but democracy was a core belief of both East and West.

Steven Carr

It was the only one you named, and you gave it as the prime example of the 'core beliefs' of Christianity, to rebut the claim that Christians have disagreed over almost all major doctrines.

If it is not the only source, please give the others, explaining how Christians almost universally agree with the doctrines in the other sources.

SlateGreySky

The fact that there exist instances of meaning-disruptive equivocation in certain contexts does not entail that all instances of common usage in paraphilosophical (religious or political) language are instances of such meaning-disruptive equivocation.

However, even if I granted that the differences between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians over the nature of hell were as socially divisive or philosophically as significant as the differences in the uses of "democracy" in East and West during the Cold War, the fact remains that each denomination subscribes to some version of hell in its respective theology. That was my original point; not that all versions of hell in Christianity are the same.

If anything less than exact univocity is unacceptable for ordinary (or even, I would say, paraphilosophical) language, we're all in trouble. As Wittgenstein showed us, vagueness is a crucial aspect of all language games. I don't think we should let this fact paralyze us from recognizing instances of greater and lesser commonality between ideologies, though.

SlateGreySky

First off, let me say that I don't think that Christians "almost universally agree with the doctrines" in these sources; I believe, however, that these sources provide historical background for the diverse entity that is Christian theology today. Christianity has worked itself out dialectically through the centuries, and old debates have been resolved as new ones crop up.

These sources don't always agree with each other: in some cases (such as the centuries-old debate on Molinism), the Catholic church heard arguments from both sides for years before ruling that one could believe either and still be an orthodox Christian.

1. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions and City of God.

2. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles.

3. Boethius, The Consolations of Philosophy.

4. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word.

5. Origen, Commentaries and Letter to Gregory.

6. Tertullian, The Apology.

7. Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen.

8. Councils of Carthage, Nicaea, Chalcedon, etc.

These are just a few of hundreds. You and I both know that Christian theology derives from years of tradition encompassing thousands of different points of view, many of which are downright antithetical to each other. Not all of these, however, are to be mistaken for "core beliefs." Differences are what make the denominations; similarities are what make them all Christian.