question for christians

[maycocksean]

Point taken, but one could argue the opposite - that if God really IS the one and only supreme power, then we MUST accept that he COULD remove all power to chose, because if we insist on humanity's right to choice, then we're insisting on taking that power from God.

This is what Calvinism says - in order to believe that God really is the one and only power, you have to believe he could predestine everything. Now where people get confused is that Calvinist do not say that "GOD HAS PREDESTINED EVERYTHING", no we're just saying that because he is God, he could. Most Calvinists also understand the distinction between "freedom of the Will" and "freedom". You can believe that one's Will is not free and still believe people have been granted the power to make their own choices. The Will only refers to one thing - whether or not you have God's Grace in your heart. A Calvinist's concept of the Will does not refer to making choices like "what should I wear today?", "who should I ask to the dance?", "should I watch this movie?", etc.

Neo-Calvinists and surface level Calvinists who've never taken the time to study Calvinist theology at length will believe or allow people to believe that freedom and freedom of the Will are synonymous.

Fair enough. God could. But I don't think he did, because based on what we know of the nature of love, it must allow for free will, PARTICULARLY when it comes to making a decision about whether we choose Him or not.

I'll confess I'm one of those people who has a surface knowledge of Calvinism, but I'd love to learn more. . .

Perhaps you could elaborate or correct me on this understanding:

Are you saying that Calvinists believe that everyone is already predestined to salvation or to be lost, and that there is nothing you can really do about that other than perhaps figure out which group you belong to?

(Please forgive my butchering of Calvnists theology there--the only way to learn is to ask!)

 

[maycocksean]

So God is living as a collectivist and satan is individualist, if it wasn't for the supernatural thing I think Satan is a better choice.

Only because I know you won't be take it is an insult (and it's not meant as one), I'll say that I'm not surprised you would view things that way. A kind of Ayn Rand approach to life, perhaps?

 

[maycocksean]

So basically, satan is perhaps a sort of fallen angel? If satan exist what other spirits exsist besides him?
I get frustrated that God sort of left us a bit in the dark.
Perhaps it's better that way.

I would agree with Liesje in the sense that I don't think you are REQUIRED to have a certain "right" understanding in order to be a good Christian.

Based on my understanding there are other fallen angels that sided with Satan (formerly known as Lucifer). I believe there are angels that sided with God. Some denominations go to great efforts to parse out the various levels of demonic and angelic "hierarchy"--you know principlalities, powers, princes of the air etc. I personally don't find all that necessary or particularly productive and in some cases can actually be a distraction from the "things that really matter." (But then again that could be because I wasn't raised in such traditions so that kind of thing is a little foreign to me).

I guess I'm kind of inclined to wonder why God even mentions supernatural beings besides himself if they matter so little in terms of our actual daily spiritual experience. One possiblity is that they really DO matter (as taught by some Christian denominations) or that it is all metaphorical (as argued by others).

For me one possible reason why God perhaps chooses to give us a glimpse "behind the curtain" is because it reminds us that you and me are NOT the enemy. No human being can ever be considered "the bad guy." Which is not to say that no person is responsible for their evil actions. . .they are. But it is to say that no individual person is the "author of evil" or is inherently and completely unredeemable and darkhearted. The source of Evil and it's Absolute representation comes from somewhere else. Which ideally should keep us from ever "demonizing" (pun intended) another human being.

In practical application, I've found when I'm in a situation where someone is frustrating me or seems to be doing things that are damaging the church, the mission, etc, knowing that this person is not the sole source of this "badness", recognizing that there is "someone" out there beyond the two of us that doesnt' WANT us to work together in harmony, helps keep me from the very easy temptation of imagining this person to be horrible beyond hope. I don't know if that makes sense or not.

That's just my perspective, of course.

 

[jacobus]

there is no satan and there is no god. its only mindgames.

 

[Ormus]

Based on my understanding there are other fallen angels that sided with Satan (formerly known as Lucifer). I believe there are angels that sided with God. Some denominations go to great efforts to parse out the various levels of demonic and angelic "hierarchy"--you know principlalities, powers, princes of the air etc. I personally don't find all that necessary or particularly productive and in some cases can actually be a distraction from the "things that really matter." (But then again that could be because I wasn't raised in such traditions so that kind of thing is a little foreign to me).

I guess I'm kind of inclined to wonder why God even mentions supernatural beings besides himself if they matter so little in terms of our actual daily spiritual experience. One possiblity is that they really DO matter (as taught by some Christian denominations) or that it is all metaphorical (as argued by others).

The trouble with all this "angelology" and "demonology" is that much of it is borrowed from other religions, or, in some cases, the result of tradition being appended onto a mistranslation. A bit of everything is applicable to the concept of "Lucifer," as the original Hebrew, "heilel ben-schahar," meaning "Helel son of Shahar." Helel was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god named Shahar. "Lucifer" originated out of the Latin Vulgate of Isaiah 14:12-14 using a Greek translation of the word "heosphorus," meaning "dawn-bearer," an epithet of Venus.

And there is a rather consistent pattern of this. "Beelzebub" was a deity worshipped by the Philistines--believed to be another name for "Baal." The word, "demon" and "devil" originated from "daeva," which started out as the name of the "good gods" in Vedic-era Hinduism, but were reviled by Zoroastrianism, an early schism from Hinduism that worshipped the "asuras," which were viewed as "bad gods" by Hindus. This game of musical chairs is why the word "deity," "demon," "devil" and "Deus" (Latin: "God") have the same Indo-European root, "*dyeus."

Generally, the logical problem with Satan--that is, having a subordinate creation of God responsible for all evil--is a result of this syncretism. As you can see above, "evil" was generally personified as a demonization of "false gods." This was apparently the case in very early Zoroastrianism, with clues indicating that Zoroaster himself did not view the Hindu daevas as "demons," but rather as false gods unworthy of worship. This would be in keeping with the Vedic Hindu tradition regarding the "asuras"--not "evil," but, rather, "unworthy of worship." However, it appears that later tradition eventually transformed them into supernatural beings of pure evil.

It's only when Judeo-Christianity "demoted" Satan from a god, as expected in comparative religions, to an angel, while keeping all of his god-like attributes, that we created this contradiction.

 

[maycocksean]

The trouble with all this "angelology" and "demonology" is that much of it is borrowed from other religions, or, in some cases, the result of tradition being appended onto a mistranslation. A bit of everything is applicable to the concept of "Lucifer," as the original Hebrew, "heilel ben-schahar," meaning "Helel son of Shahar." Helel was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god named Shahar. "Lucifer" originated out of the Latin Vulgate of Isaiah 14:12-14 using a Greek translation of the word "heosphorus," meaning "dawn-bearer," an epithet of Venus.

And there is a rather consistent pattern of this. "Beelzebub" was a deity worshipped by the Philistines--believed to be another name for "Baal." The word, "demon" and "devil" originated from "daeva," which started out as the name of the "good gods" in Vedic-era Hinduism, but were reviled by Zoroastrianism, an early schism from Hinduism that worshipped the "asuras," which were viewed as "bad gods" by Hindus. This game of musical chairs is why the word "deity," "demon," "devil" and "Deus" (Latin: "God") have the same Indo-European root, "*dyeus."

Generally, the logical problem with Satan--that is, having a subordinate creation of God responsible for all evil--is a result of this syncretism. As you can see above, "evil" was generally personified as a demonization of "false gods." This was apparently the case in very early Zoroastrianism, with clues indicating that Zoroaster himself did not view the Hindu daevas as "demons," but rather as false gods unworthy of worship. This would be in keeping with the Vedic Hindu tradition regarding the "asuras"--not "evil," but, rather, "unworthy of worship." However, it appears that later tradition eventually transformed them into supernatural beings of pure evil.

It's only when Judeo-Christianity "demoted" Satan from a god, as expected in comparative religions, to an angel, while keeping all of his god-like attributes, that we created this contradiction.

Meh. . .I dunno. For me, at least, that's not all that shattering. I don't have a problem with viewing Satan as a "rival god" in a sense. (I'm sure he likes to view himself that way). I always thought of the Baal's and what not as represenatitve of an actual supernatural power, and calling him/them "gods" doesn't really bother me. Even Jesus showed a certain flexiblity about the use of the word "gods" quoting scripture to illustrate that we as humans might be considered "gods." To me there is "gods" and there is God.

Furthermore, I think the earlier parts of the Old Testament make it clear that the authors (i.e. the books of Moses and so on) didn't seem aware of the existence of Satan. They attributed both evil and good to God at that time. There's a classic example of the story of King David's decsion to take a census of Israel. In one Biblical account it says the "the Spirit of the Lord" made him do it (this was something "wrong" for which David and Israel later reaped consequenfces), but in a later account of the exact same story it says that Satan tempted him to do it, portraying an evolving understanding of the nature of spiritual conflict.

So the whole idea that the God/Satan thing might have evolved over time, even involving the factors you described, doesn't inherently invalidate the concept for me.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm not a as well-versed in this stuff as you are, but didn't Zorastrianism develop in Persia? I didn't know the Hindu religion was practiced there.

 

[Ormus]

Oh, and one more thing. I'm not a as well-versed in this stuff as you are, but didn't Zorastrianism develop in Persia? I didn't know the Hindu religion was practiced there.

Well, religion is an evolving institution, and, at one point in prehistory, mostly everyone from Europe stretching to India (minus the Semitic tribes, which includes the Jews and Muslims) were "Indo-European." Their common language origin also indicates common cultural and spiritual heritages, and, at some point millennia ago, the two religions split and went on divergent paths.

Here's a map to illustrate my point about migration:

We could probably reveal a similar progression with early Semitic religion, if it weren't for the fact that their migration from Africa ended in prehistory, and no further migration occurs. This ends up in contrast to the Indo-European migration, where early Hinduism and the Vikings were essentially the beginning and the end of a long series of migrations.

 

[maycocksean]

Well, religion is an evolving institution, and, at one point in prehistory, mostly everyone from Europe stretching to India (minus the Semitic tribes, which includes the Jews and Muslims) were "Indo-European." Their common language origin also indicates common cultural and spiritual heritages, and, at some point millennia ago, the two religions split and went on divergent paths.

Here's a map to illustrate my point about migration:

We could probably reveal a similar progression with early Semitic religion, if it weren't for the fact that their migration from Africa ended in prehistory, and no further migration occurs. This ends up in contrast to the Indo-European migration, where early Hinduism and the Vikings were essentially the beginning and the end of a long series of migrations.

Hmmm. A key to go with the color coding on the map might help me a bit here.

But correct me if I'm wrong--you're saying that religion of the Persians at the time Zorastrianism developed was essentially a form of what we now know as Hinduism?

 

[Ormus]

Hmmm. A key to go with the color coding on the map might help me a bit here.

The only "key" is the time stamp. It's not meant to identify specific cultures.

But correct me if I'm wrong--you're saying that religion of the Persians at the time Zorastrianism developed was essentially a form of what we now know as Hinduism?

Yes, more or less, although it split from Vedic Hinduism, which scholars date from the 1st-2nd millennium B.C. In other words, it has very little in common with modern Hinduism, as Hinduism itself has changed considerably over the last 3000 years. Back then, it was probably just a matter of switching sets of deities, as the "asuras" that Zoroastrians worshipped were derided as "false gods" by Vedic Hindus, and the "daevas" that the Hindus worshipped were derided as "false gods" by Zoroastrians.

One of the best examples of this is with the deity, Indra. Indra is the chief deity in the "Rigveda," the holiest book in Vedic Hinduism. In Zoroastrianism, however, Indra is the leader of the "false gods," equated as "devils." In the Vendidad, one of the books of the Avesta (Zoroastrian scriptures), Indra is one of six chief demons.

Essentially, this shows a common pattern in religion, where a neighboring religion's "gods" become "devils" in the other. The "Lucifer/Beelzebub" example illustrates how this occurred in Judaism, where neighboring Semitic deities became equated with evil.

Just to note, just as Hinduism evolved further from Vedic Hinduism, Zoroastrianism evolved substantially from its early heritage. It ventured away from polytheism in its earliest years, eventually to dualism (Ahura Mazda, god of light; Angra Mainyu, god of darkness) by the time of the Persian Empire by demoting all those "gods" into supernatural sub-deities like angels and demons (and, yes, they have a full angelology and demonology, comparable to Christian traditions). Presently, the few Zoroastrians still in existence are monotheistic, having demoted Angra Mainyu to an evil being comparable to a "Holy Spirit," which, in practice, is not all that different from Satan's relationship to God in Christian tradition. The latter occurred in the 19th century, as a defense against Christian missionaries, interestingly enough.

 

[maycocksean]

Thanks for the elaboration, Melon. As always I'm impressed by your scholarship.

Again Satan's relative standing in the "hierarchy" through history whether represented by the gods of the neighbors or some sort of "opposite but equal" god is really neither here nor there for me. But it is interesting.

 

[Laird/Bono]

Who needs Satan? The human race itself has proven time and time again that it is capable of every evil deed with no prompting from The Man in Red Horns

 

[Liesje]

Who needs Satan? The human race itself has proven time and time again that it is capable of every evil deed with no prompting from The Man in Red Horns

I think the thread is asking if there even is a difference between the evil we do and the man with red horns. "Satan" is not exclusively the devil man with red horns.

 

[edgeboy]

The only thing that bothers me is the concept is so logically wrong. To say that some how this rogue force or spirit somehow found it's way into our universe even though god creates everything. The only evil in the world comes from humans. I believe someone in this forum says humans aren't the authors of sin. So i guess this means we no longer have freewill huh?

 

[cstar]

The only thing that bothers me is the concept is so logically wrong. To say that some how this rogue force or spirit somehow found it's way into our universe even though god creates everything. The only evil in the world comes from humans. I believe someone in this forum says humans aren't the authors of sin. So i guess this means we no longer have freewill huh?

I believe God = Everything.
I don't believe in Satan or Hell

Why would an unconditional loving God send humans to hell to burn in eternal damnation?

 

[maycocksean]

The only thing that bothers me is the concept is so logically wrong. To say that some how this rogue force or spirit somehow found it's way into our universe even though god creates everything.

What bothers you about this?

a God of perfect love cannot create a being without free choice which would necessarily include the freedom to choose not to follow God's way of love. So in fact a perfect God HAD to create someone who could choose to be the opposite of who God is. Based on my understanding of Scripture, Satan wasn't created "evil"--he was good at first, but chose evil.

I believe someone in this forum says humans aren't the authors of sin. So i guess this means we no longer have freewill huh?

I believe I was the one that said humans aren't the authors of sin. Just because someone else, besides a human being developed an alternative system to God's--one based on selfishness and pride-- and offered that system to humanity, how does that affect or take away our freedom of choice? We still have the freedom to choose whether to embrace selfishness or love.

I'm not the author of the ipod. It doesn't mean I am therefore compelled to use one.

I think you're mixing up the concepts of the "originator" of sin, who I believe is Satan (He's the one who came up with the "idea." I'm sure if he hadn't someone else would have, perhaps even a human being), and the "author" of specific "sins" in our daily lives which obviously come from us, from our own choices. (Note that I don't believe that sin can exist in the absence of choice).

 

[maycocksean]

Why would an unconditional loving God send humans to hell to burn in eternal damnation?

He wouldn't. You do understand that not all Christians believe in burning forever in hell, don't you?

 

[Butterscotch]

I don't believe in the stereotypical devil with the pointy tail and pitchfork in the sea of fire, but I do believe there are evil forces in the world as well as good ones. (kind of like the dark and light sides of the force in Star Wars)

 

[cstar]

He wouldn't. You do understand that not all Christians believe in burning forever in hell, don't you?

I thought hell was a basic Christian belief. As is heaven.

 

[Liesje]

I thought hell was a basic Christian belief. As is heaven.

It is. But it doesn't mean your interpretation of hell is universally correct and accepted by all forms of Christianity.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I believe God = Everything.
I don't believe in Satan or Hell

Why would an unconditional loving God send humans to hell to burn in eternal damnation?

God doesn't send people to hell.

People send themselves.

God is perfectly holy righteous, and as such cannot abide in the presence of anything less than perfect holiness and righteousness. It's his very nature. God can't do everything; he can't live contrary to his own nature.

The very first time a person understands the difference between right and wrong and realizes he is guilty of wrong, he is guilty of sin. His spirit is imperfect - not holy and righteous like God. Man's spirit is immortal, so when that person's physical body dies, his spirit has to live somewhere. But imperfect man cannot abide in the presence of God, so the spirit lives in hell. Whether hell is a place of fire and brimstone or just darkness, any place that doesn't know the presence of God is hell.

But God is not happy with that. He wants everyone to have life eternal with him. People blame God and say that he "sends people to hell", but rather, it's the exact opposite that is true. God so loves the people of the world that he devised a rescue plan. He sent his only son, Jesus to Earth. The price of sin is death. Christ willingly paid that price for us by allowing himself to be crucified in our place. It only worked because Christ is perfect and holy not only in spirit, but also in flesh, unlike man. Christ paid the debt that we could not pay. He rose again on the third day, thereby defeating death.

Man can "try and try and try to be good enough" to earn his way into Heaven, but it will never be good enough; he will never make it by his own good works. And why? Because God's standard is absolute perfection and holiness, and no man can be good enough to attain that perfect righteous state.

But God's answer, his "rescue plan", his method of bringing people into his good graces, is quite simple. Put your faith in Christ and what he has done for you, and your sins will be forgiven, and Christ will make of you a new spirit clothed in his holiness and righteousness. When God looks at you from that point on, he will not see sin; he will see the blood of Christ that has washed away all guilt.

Consider some lines from the Christmas carol "Away In A Manger":

"Bless all the dear children in thy tender care
And fit us for Heaven, to live with you there"

Because of God's perfect holiness and his absolutely sinless nature, he cannot live in the presence of sin. Therefore, only those whom God has made "fit for Heaven" can live eternally with him. But the thing is, that offer is open to anyone who will exercise his free will and accept it.

In a few months, there will be a new website up, www.new-creation.us, that deals more in depth with the issue of salvation.

Merry Christmas

 

[Liesje]

God doesn't send people to hell.

People send themselves.

God is perfectly holy righteous, and as such cannot abide in the presence of anything less than perfect holiness and righteousness. It's his very nature. God can't do everything; he can't live contrary to his own nature.

Oh man you were sound like such a good Calvinist there

Welcome back

 

[80sU2isBest]

Oh man you were sound like such a good Calvinist there

I'm not a Calvinist (in that I don't believe anyone's salvation is predestinated; ask me about foreknowledge and my reply would be totally different), but Calvinists have ideas I do believe are true, so thank you for the compliment. However, I am not an Armenian, either, as I believe in "once saved, always saved."

Welcome back

Thanks! I won't be around much, and I'm going to try my darnedest to not get in arguments. I am going to try to speak only when I have something helpful to say.

Merry Christmas

 

[verte76]

Welcome back '80's.

 

[Liesje]

I'm not a Calvinist (in that I don't believe anyone's salvation is predestinated; ask me about foreknowledge and my reply would be totally different), but Calvinists have ideas I do believe are true, so thank you for the compliment. However, I am not an Armenian, either, as I believe in "once saved, always saved."

Yeah, I figured as much from your other posts. Don't worry, I'm not one of those that assumes you are of Armenian thought if you are not a Calvinist My beliefs on predestination are also a lot different than common neo-Calvinist thought. The purpose of predestination in Calvin's theology was almost more of a mathematical proof than a doctrine. I'm still intrigued as to how it became THE defining issue of our sect when it was merely an afterthought to Calvin. Like a lot of religious doctrine these days, it was those who came later, after Calvin's death, that twisted and bastardized his original work into what we're left with today. What you said earlier about perfect holiness being the nature of God basically sums up the God aspect of Calvinism perfectly. That's all we're really getting after - God's perfection and absolute power, holiness, and love. I will not speculate as to whether I believe I am pre-saved or was given a pass into Heaven before I was born because, IMO, such assumptions are blasphemous (maybe you would agree?).

 

[maycocksean]

I thought hell was a basic Christian belief. As is heaven.

It depends on what you mean by hell. I believe that those who don't choose life (i.e. heaven), will of course be left the the alternative, death. The "death process"--the "destruction of the wicked" if you will is what I consider to hell. It's RESULTS are permanant, eternal, and irreversable, but the process itself is not. In my Christian tradition we call this the second death, from which there will be no resurrection.

To avoid arguing with 80's (because I don't want him to stop posting on account of me ) let me make it clear that I'm simply articulating that there are differing views on these issues within Christianity.

My denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, teaches (and I believe) that the soul is NOT immortal but is intrinsically tied to the physical body. The "spirit" that returns to God is not a conscious, sentient entity of any sort.

Because of this, there is no need for the existence of a hell, a place of eternal torment. So we do not believe in such a place either.

We believe this to be the correct Scripture-based theology (of course) but I can assure you that 80's and other Christians who share his theology also have Scriptures that support their point of view. The best I could recommend for you is to prayerfully study the Bible, weigh the varying perspectives, and decide for yourself

80's has done a good job of articulating another Christian theological perspective. And besides his views on immortality and hell, I'm solidly in agreement with him on his explanation of God's "rescue plan."

It's just important to understand that on many theological issues there are very few agreed upon perspectives that ALL Christians see exactly the same way.

 

[BorderGirl]

If Satan does not exist then who was Jesus talking to up on the parapet wall? Who tempted Jesus in the desert?

 

[BVS]

If Satan does not exist then who was Jesus talking to up on the parapet wall? Who tempted Jesus in the desert?

Is it possible analogies were used?

 

[Axver]

I thought hell was a basic Christian belief. As is heaven.

Not at all. I do not wish to actually join in on this discussion properly, as I am not confident in theological debates at the present time, but I would just like to chime in and add that there are Christians such as myself who are universalists. The upshot of it all is that everyone ends up in Heaven, though it is of course far more nuanced than that (my form of universalism involves something that could be considered akin to a Purgatory). Universalism, despite some false perceptions, has a very long and rich history in Christianity, and its Scriptural arguments are strong. It is also believed by a diverse group of people; it isn't some hippy belief confined to extremely liberal Christians. Both my girlfriend and I are universalists (and were before we even met each other), even though I come from a liberal Anglican tradition while she comes from a family that's half Catholic and half Baptist.

I'd just like to reiterate that I am making this post merely for informative purposes. I hope I am not repeating what has already been said as I have only read some of this thread. I just wished to offer some clarification on the diversity of Christian perspectives rather than enter into a debate, so this will probably be my only post in this thread. Have a good one, folks.

 

[Liesje]

I just wished to offer some clarification on the diversity of Christian perspectives rather than enter into a debate, so this will probably be my only post in this thread. Have a good one, folks.

Your post reminded me of a story my mom tells that also proves not all Christians are the same and some of the most theologically strict can be the most bigoted. She used to work in a doctors office and the conservative Christian doctor was rude and stingy, not willing to help patience with no money or insurance, while the Universalist doctor, who did not attend church *gasp* was very kind and patient and went out of his way to help people.

I'm sure this extends even beyond sects of Christianity. Our theological and doctrinal convictions really are no indication of how much compassion we actually show towards people. Some of the most religiously pious people I know would cheat a poor person of their last dime.

 

[maycocksean]

I'm sure this extends even beyond sects of Christianity. Our theological and doctrinal convictions really are no indication of how much compassion we actually show towards people. Some of the most religiously pious people I know would cheat a poor person of their last dime.