|
Somfin posted:The whole idea of Satan strikes me as a bit backward and wrong-footed. Christianity has plenty of conflict in it already. Humans, trying to be Godly, versus their own Urges and Instincts. Putting in a bad guy just sort of strikes me as missing the point. Yup, basically. It's important to note that "devil as evil god" is an extremely Greek notion, and not at all consistent with the devil's depiction anywhere in the Bible except, arguably, Revelation. To return to the actual topic, the Bible also never depicts magic as effective, with the exception of Pharoah's magicians who turn their staves into snakes. This, however, is a single verse, in a part of the Bible which is already of extremely dubious historicity. The source of their power is also not described. The parts of the Bible which condemn magic can be just as easily understood as condemning con artists who pretend to have magic powers. As the medical quacks of their day, they would prey on the weak in their most vulnerable moment, something I think we can all agree is immoral.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
DStecks posted:Yup, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How is that Greek? Hades was depicted as probably the most moral of the gods by a wide margin. Greek in that it presupposes that there exist supernatural agents with conflicting interests. The idea that anything but God could be the source of power would be utterly anathema to first-century Jewish thought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
That applies to any polytheistic religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Also the fact that Hell (The Underworld) needs to have a "leader" is Greek. Our perception of Hell is very much influenced by Dante (Which I realize is a 13th century Italian author, but studying Greek and Roman philisophy was a thing for basically all of the middle ages). All the bible says is a vague reference about a lake of Fire which may or may not have been intended as allegorical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How is that Greek? Hades was depicted as probably the most moral of the gods by a wide margin. This is commonly stated but not really true; it just seems that when when you read collections of the most popular myths naively. In fact, Hades was the god most feared in ancient Greek culture, because being dead sucks for the vast majority of people in that worldview. (Also, the existence of winter is partly his fault.) It's true that he wasn't really seen as "evil" either, though. Greek mythology is pretty lacking in Angra Mainyu-ish figures; there's Kakia, but I don't think she was considered particularly important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:This isn't really true. For instance, Catholicism makes you pledge to "reject Satan, and all his works, and all his empty promises." It's pretty clear that most other Christians treat him similarly, regardless of how the Bible might present the character. You're not contradicting him. Satan isn't 'evil' he's 'the other side', so yea being a good Christian/Jew/Muslim means not letting him win. In most religious writing and all Satan is basically just the dude who goes 'yea but why waste the time with all that rules poo poo'. I've read some interesting things that take that to mean he still has God's sanction and all since pretty much anyone can be a good servant of God if there were no tests. The devil, in most cultures (and I'm obviously massively boiling down 'the devil' when you leave the Abrahamic faiths but I'm folding in the assorted antagonist underworld gods and all) isn't a bad dude/lady, they just have a lovely role to play. Now, there are plenty example of destroyer gods and all that are more evil, but even then in places like Asian faiths and all it's a matter of balance rather than just 'yo this dick hates Humans so he just eats us all, what an rear end in a top hat'. edit: That said poo poo like "Hades was the most noble god" and all is pretty wrong, death gods are dicks, they have a role to play that requires it, and most of them are ok with that, which makes them pretty bad people in the myths. Hades did some shady rear end poo poo that you can't really gloss over with 'well he's lonely in the underworld' and all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
That puts Hades more in line with the Grim Reaper than it does the devil.RagnarokAngel posted:Also the fact that Hell (The Underworld) needs to have a "leader" is Greek. Osiris, Supay, Hel, Ereshkigal, Mictlantecuhtli, Izanami-No-Kami, Donn, Hun Hao, El Tio, Ishtar-Deela - nearly every polytheistic religion in earths history has had a god of the dead who ruled over the underworld. Only exception is Hinduism, because it doesn't have an afterlife, just an endless cycle of rebirth. Tatum Girlparts posted:
"Most moral of the Greek gods" doesn't in any way mean good, just the least of a bastard. He didn't start any bloody wars over being slighted, or unleash all the horrors of the world, or force drunken bestiality because he didn't get the choicest cuts of beef, or force a man to murder his wife and children, or crush someone because he was a sore loser. He just does his job and doesn't really care what goes on in the mortal world. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That puts Hades more in line with the Grim Reaper than it does the devil. Well I mean he stole a chick and used trickery to force her to come back to him every year to make winter. He got screwed by his brothers but that still comes off as a dickbag move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That puts Hades more in line with the Grim Reaper than it does the devil. Right yeah I know that, but Christianity is just so clearly influenced by Greek and Roman mythology because of where it came from and where it got kickstarted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Only exception is Hinduism, because it doesn't have an afterlife, just an endless cycle of rebirth. Hinduism has a god of death (Yama), and belief in reincarnation is far from unique to India.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Well I mean he stole a chick and used trickery to force her to come back to him every year to make winter. He got screwed by his brothers but that still comes off as a dickbag move. Its not exactly like he tricked her. Everyone was pretty clear on the rules before the situation got started. Persephone was bitten by an adder and died, and went to the underworld. If she didn't eat anything in the underworld, she would be allowed to leave. She ate something in the underworld, so by all rights she wasn't allowed to leave. Then he gave her up for 9 months of the year. Not the most gentlemanly behavior in the world, but again, we compare this to regular swan rape. made of bees posted:Hinduism has a god of death (Yama), and belief in reincarnation is far from unique to India. Yama is a god of death, not a ruler of the realm of the dead, which is the specific thing I was pointing out in all these cultures. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That applies to any polytheistic religion. But early Christian philosophy was specifically influenced by the Greek worldview. There are a hell of a lot of things people assume about what the Bible teaches that are really more artifacts of the early church thinkers having been influenced by a Greco/Roman worldview. Like Hell, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That puts Hades more in line with the Grim Reaper than it does the devil. That's probably the best way to put it. Hades was the god of "the underworld," which was basically where dead people go. Greek views on death were also different than contemporary or Christian ones, generally. Comparing him to Satan is kind of ludicrous. Hades was mostly a god with a job that just did that job and mostly tried to stay out of other peoples' business. Satan is actively trying to tempt people into sin (well, not always, but that's a view I've commonly heard). The motivation varies but the most common one is that it's part of the judgement of who gets to go to heaven and who does not. People who stay faithful and live virtuously go to heaven, those that don't go to hell. Satan only runs one of them while Hades ran the entire afterlife. The whole underworld was his domain. In the case of Hades he believed in justice and did his best to make fair decisions but could be a massive dickbag if he needed to be. He also, being associated with death, didn't feel pity. Everything died and eventually ended up in the underworld. It was only a matter of time and no, you didn't get to leave except under very special circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
What does Conservapedia think about Satan?quote:Liberal Protestant views Cafeteria Christianity is a link! What's it about? quote:Cafeteria Christianity refers to the practice of deciding for oneself which parts of the Bible to accept, as one might select certain foods in a cafeteria while rejecting others.[1] This implies that the person is a Christian in name only and, while believing in a deity, does not adhere to any particular creed of Christianity - perfering to decide for themself how to express their faith. Other terms include "salad-bar Christianity" and "cherry-picking Christianity."  Where's that giant growing ironicat when I need it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Fun fact!  Mormonism reverses the devil's purpose; instead of exploiting free will as a test for the sake of it, he exploits free will as a test because he thinks free will was a mistake and God should have just gone with the whole perfect-automatons thing. It also plays up the whole War-In-Heaven thing in a way that I'm pretty sure was Milton-inspired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:This is commonly stated but not really true; it just seems that when when you read collections of the most popular myths naively. In fact, Hades was the god most feared in ancient Greek culture, because being dead sucks for the vast majority of people in that worldview. (Also, the existence of winter is partly his fault.) It's true that he wasn't really seen as "evil" either, though. Greek mythology is pretty lacking in Angra Mainyu-ish figures; there's Kakia, but I don't think she was considered particularly important. Part of the thing too with Greek mythology was that their gods were not perfect beings, so there's not really too much need for a perfectly evil being either. They all had serious characters flaws that make them different from Yahweh. But even so, there really isn't too much Satan in the Bible. He's a force that's discussed, but he really isn't active in the sense that some Christians like to believe he is. I think it would be an interesting thesis to write where one were to explore Evangelical Christianity and find how much of what they believe is really extra-Biblical and has no real foundations in the teaching of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Part of the thing too with Greek mythology was that their gods were not perfect beings, so there's not really too much need for a perfectly evil being either. They all had serious characters flaws that make them different from Yahweh. To play devil's advocate (no pun intended): 2 Corinthians 4:4 posted:In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. I believe the interpretation of "the god of this world" as Satan and not the true God dates back at least as far as the Church Fathers. Matthew 4:8-9 posted:Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. So it can be argued that the idea of Satan having enormous power over the world is scripturally supported. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Only if you assume that Satan does indeed have the incredible powers that fundies sometimes attribute to him. And "why does God let bad things happen" is a different question from "why did God give Satan magic powers to do evil". One allows for considering the importance of free will, the other demands a God who is deliberately causing evil. What I'm saying is that yes, God gave Satan his powers and allows Satan to work because he is doing a job god gave him. If this weren't the case, God would put a stop to it, which is what makes the end times in the bible a load of bull. God is all powerful and all knowing, yet Jesus has to have some boss match with Satan in the end when god can just snap his fingers and end it. The book is like Harry Potter pieced together by 40 different people over the span of 2000 years or more. Satan gets demonized a lot by religion, but it's not his fault that that position was given to him, he's doing his job...and in truth, seems to be quite a bit more honest and less petty than god. Most of the passages about him are people attributing things to him rather than him actually doing things SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Part of the thing too with Greek mythology was that their gods were not perfect beings, so there's not really too much need for a perfectly evil being either. They all had serious characters flaws that make them different from Yahweh. Actually a poo poo load of it apocryphal or just flat out made up later on. Some of the strongest-held beliefs of contemporary western Christianity are extremely modern. One perfect example is the basis of young Earth creationism. The Bible doesn't say a single drat thing about how old the Earth is but people read Genesis and calculated how many generations back the thing goes and said "the Earth is this old based on that." Which is kind of absurd, as the Bible doesn't say anything about nothing existing before that or even when God created the Earth in relation to when Genesis starts. The Bible also lacks any sort of description of the devil other than a basic idea of who he is and what sorts of poo poo he gets up to. If memory serves "satan" was kind of a generic term that didn't apply to one particular being but rather to a concept. drat near everything that's attributed to "the devil" is actually a medieval creation. The other thing that has absolutely no Biblical basis whatsoever is the concept of the immaculate conception, as we know it. Mary has always been revered as holy, at the very least, and is assumed to be without sin, unlike the rest of us, the dogma of the immaculate conception came about in the 19th century. The concept was kind of floating around but didn't enter the canon. If memory serves there are also things in the King James Bible that were either mistranslations or things that translated poorly into English that were ultimately not in the original scriptures. There are a few things here and there that either crept in earlier or were added when the King James translation took place that were put in deliberately to justify some particular person's beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Scenario: Oh yeah, I mean my master Vince the Very Violent had to orchestrate quite a few genocides just to have enough human sacrifice to make the perfect cup of tea. Also I love how uncreative Satantic Panic people get. Yeah we all know Harry Potter has our children dancing to the Devil's tune but what about the Worst Witch, or those Anthony Horowitz books from the 80's?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
The rapture is also a new idea. It's interesting to note that Mormons have a slightly different idea about the rapture than other American churches. The rapture thing was still being hashed out when they headed west.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
The whole War in Heaven thing is mostly based on Milton, especially the statistic about one in three angels joining Lucifer or whatever it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
I've always felt that reading the bible literally is sort of like reading a book like Slaughterhouse 5 literally. If you take it as a historical novel, you're really missing the point of what was being conveyed, even if the events it refers to were real. Revelations in particular is an obvious allegory for Rome, and makes like zero sense without understanding that the guy who wrote it was probably a jewish convert to Christianity who was writing about his ultimate belief that good would triumph over evil (Rome). ToxicSlurpee posted:Actually a poo poo load of it apocryphal or just flat out made up later on. Some of the strongest-held beliefs of contemporary western Christianity are extremely modern. One perfect example is the basis of young Earth creationism. The Bible doesn't say a single drat thing about how old the Earth is but people read Genesis and calculated how many generations back the thing goes and said "the Earth is this old based on that." Which is kind of absurd, as the Bible doesn't say anything about nothing existing before that or even when God created the Earth in relation to when Genesis starts. All this is sort of true (the King James bible in particular doesn't have mistranslations per say, so much as it worded things specifically in ways to help justify ideas like the divine right of kings), but I think it's pretty reductive to take the bible as the only root of "true" Christianity. Christianity evolved a lot as it spread throughout the world, and it worked in a lot of ideas from local cultures to form the worldview it has now. Like, Milton's understanding of Satan is pretty drat influential, and I find it hard to characterize it as any more illegitimate a piece of Christianity as anything else, given how much it informs people's worldview.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The Bible also lacks any sort of description of the devil other than a basic idea of who he is and what sorts of poo poo he gets up to. If memory serves "satan" was kind of a generic term that didn't apply to one particular being but rather to a concept. drat near everything that's attributed to "the devil" is actually a medieval creation. Kind of, satan is generic, The Satan is the specific member of the Hebrew God's entourage
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:All this is sort of true (the King James bible in particular doesn't have mistranslations per say, so much as it worded things specifically in ways to help justify ideas like the divine right of kings), but I think it's pretty reductive to take the bible as the only root of "true" Christianity. Christianity evolved a lot as it spread throughout the world, and it worked in a lot of ideas from local cultures to form the worldview it has now. Like, Milton's understanding of Satan is pretty drat influential, and I find it hard to characterize it as any more illegitimate a piece of Christianity as anything else, given how much it informs people's worldview. I'm not saying it's illegitimate or that should be removed but rather people point to many things and say "because the Bible says so" without it being in the Bible at all or being from some particular interpretation of the Bible. A lot of it has gotten so twisted and mangled to suit particular beliefs over the years that I feel like the original meaning, whatever it was, got lost centuries ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Oh, I have no doubt the original meaning still exists depending on where you stand in the power scheme. Keeping people under control, it's still there. Same as the whole "be a good person" stuff, it just tends to get overlooked by the nutters so they can defend whatever persecution complex they are rolling around in at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_earthConservapedia posted:All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. That sourced verifiable evidence? A poll that says Americans believe in creationism more than evolution. This says everything you need to know about their reasoning. They completely ignore that some of the scientists they try to combat are Christians themselves. It's just a fight for them to focus on instead of the flaws with their belief system that other Christians have adjusted to in order to be healthy contributors to society. Religion still has major positive roles to play with community organizing and spiritual fulfillment but instead of thinking about it they decide to be a child and want a modern society with an ancient belief system and now confirming what they believe is more important than actually acting in a way that would be inclusive and add members to their religion. Maybe they should team up with the Bitcoin people. Christcoin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
I'm not all that familiar with Christianity and this is an interesting derail, so: why/how was Mary born without sin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I'm not all that familiar with Christianity and this is an interesting derail, so: why/how was Mary born without sin? It's the idea that Mary was born without original sin, in order to be "spiritually pure", for when she bore Christ. Or something along those lines anyway. The "hows" are never delved into. It's primarily part of Catholic dogma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
If you want to take the Catholic interpretation it was that she was saved preemptively by God. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I'm not all that familiar with Christianity and this is an interesting derail, so: why/how was Mary born without sin? As I understand it: all humans are inherently sinful because our parents were inherently sinful because their parents were etc etc, all the way back to Adam and Eve eating the Apple. This is called "Original Sin", and it's basically spiritual Lamarckism. However, Jesus is completely and totally without any sin in any way whatsoever. And Jesus is human, and Jesus has a human mother. And everyone gets their sinful nature from their mother. This apparent paradox is resolved by retconning in the "Immaculate Conception", by which Jesus's Mother was conceived sinlessly. That's why. As for how - IT WAS A MIRACLE. And as for what it actually means to be "conceived sinlessly"... well, that leads to a maze of twisty little definitions, all alike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
It's Catholics rules-lawyering a way out of a problem they'd gotten themselves into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
The whole point isn't that Mary was without sin (because her parents had to gently caress to produce her), but that Jesus was conceived without that sin. There's considerable argument over whether or not Mary remained without sin after that point (some saying that yes, she remained chaste and pure for the rest of her life, others that Joseph hit that as soon as Jesus was out of the house) Or as Al Murray says, "Nobody likes the idea of their mum having sex, but only the Catholics managed to base an entire religion around it".
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I've always felt that reading the bible literally is sort of like reading a book like Slaughterhouse 5 literally. If you take it as a historical novel, you're really missing the point of what was being conveyed, even if the events it refers to were real. Revelations in particular is an obvious allegory for Rome, and makes like zero sense without understanding that the guy who wrote it was probably a jewish convert to Christianity who was writing about his ultimate belief that good would triumph over evil (Rome). Revelation is an incredibly difficult work to understand, and a lot of people just bludgeon it horribly because they don't really understand what it is about. There's a ton of symbolism being thrown about. Even the introduction to the book in the Catholic Bible basically said "Look, you can't take this literally at all. There's so much symbolism in it, and half of this stuff would just be repulsive if it was real." That's the problem with Bible literalism. The people who were writing the Bible were using things like numbers in a really symbolic way, and it all gets thrown away because you have to believe it happened exactly as it said. I mean, we all know that the Israelites didn't wander in the desert for 40 years. They just wandered for a loving long time. Numbers get more and more important as you go, when you get to 666 and the ram with 7 horns or eyes or some hosed up poo poo like that. The other thing is that the Bible is a compilation. It's like trying to construct a story from a greatest hits work. There was a lot more stuff that was written over the years, but it just didn't get in for one reason or another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:The whole point isn't that Mary was without sin (because her parents had to gently caress to produce her), but that Jesus was conceived without that sin. There's considerable argument over whether or not Mary remained without sin after that point (some saying that yes, she remained chaste and pure for the rest of her life, others that Joseph hit that as soon as Jesus was out of the house) Wasn't there a portion of the New Testament early on in Jesus's life where Jesus started to father crowds and talk about how was the sun of god, and his mother and siblings came over and told him to stop acting like a crazy person or he'd get the poo poo kicked out of him? I seem to remember that happening in one throw-away passage, and showing that Mary did indeed conceive more children with Joseph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:The whole point isn't that Mary was without sin (because her parents had to gently caress to produce her), but that Jesus was conceived without that sin. There's considerable argument over whether or not Mary remained without sin after that point (some saying that yes, she remained chaste and pure for the rest of her life, others that Joseph hit that as soon as Jesus was out of the house) But Mary and Joseph were married, surely it wouldn't be a sin for them to have sex?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:But Mary and Joseph were married, surely it wouldn't be a sin for them to have sex? They didn't have a Christian wedding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:But Mary and Joseph were married, surely it wouldn't be a sin for them to have sex? All sex is icky and gross and you should be ashamed of it all times. It's only for making babies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Bible or at least related texts mention Jesus having some younger siblings. Wasn't one of his brothers an apostle?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:52
|
|