[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[warpus]

A human is a very well defined thing. As soon as you have something that's 100% human, that precludes it from being almost anything else.

To answer your question a robot could be 100% a person, but definitely not 100% human. But I feel like I am needlessly tangenting away from the purpose of this thread, as my initial disagreement was a mathematical/logical one and not theological.

 

[El_Machinae]

The theology isn't easy. Jesus obviously had human fallibilities. And when we say he was divine, it's really really hard to figure out how to modify our understanding regarding which ways he didn't have human fallibilities.

 

[tetley]

Which sort of goes back to my original question: if Jesus is divine and God cannot be tempted, they why was He? It's a contradiction.

It is at this point that I fall back onto debates as a source. I read God's Word, it seems inconclusive, so I look to others' thoughts. What's going on here?

It seems part of Jesus' very existence was a paradox. If He is 100% man, 100% God (or 50/50, but the pie is twice as big), then He both was tempted and was not. It's not that the Bible is in error--it's that the reality itself is paradoxical. It's like being 100% penguin, 100% albatross. Albatrosses can fly; penguins cannot. How can a bird both fly and not? 50/50 I can understand: maybe the bird can only 50% fly. But 100/100 I cannot.

 

[Agent327]

Is there a theological argument here, or at least a question? It appears you just have an issue with theology, or certain theology. I don't accept all points of theology either, when they become contradictory. For one thing, sons of God, are the same beings that the ancients referred to as gods, unless they were not beings. (...)

There is a standard definition of evolution. I am not seeing what you have stated as contradictory in a theological framework. I am not sure how you think evolution would be off limits to theologians.

I have no clue what you are saying here. And that's not a question or a theological argument, just something that I'd like to point out. If I do have a question, I expect a theologian to answer it.

 

[timtofly]

I have no clue what you are saying here. And that's not a question or a theological argument, just something that I'd like to point out. If I do have a question, I expect a theologian to answer it.

Theology is the body of work that states it was Satan who tempted Eve. It is also mentioned in the book of Revelation. Unless you have a source that states something else, then that is the answer of theologians. The offspring of Eve will always see Satan and his followers as enemies. The part about the offspring of the Serpent is what is metaphorical. There is not a race of Satans. They would be the spiritual followers as in Jesus saying, "Ye are of your father the Devil." And, No. The Devil does not make any one do what they do not want to do. That is what Adam started. But we cannot blame Adam either, because Jesus took care of the Adam Issue. We can only blame ourselves as agents of our own free will. That is; Jesus gave us a choice, to follow Satan and his lies, or God the source of all truth. Or perhaps find our own path, which will not get us any further than the path Satan took. But we are still talking about a spiritual reality that is separate from the physical reality. It has little to do with morals and how humans interact with other humans. There are some who argue that the human part is all there is, and we have no choice. We are just slaves to the ongoing evolutionary process of nature.

 

[Arakhor]

Plotinus is the theologian in this thread - anything else is "Ask a random person to interpret the Bible".

 

[Agent327]

Theology is the body of work that states it was Satan who tempted Eve. It is also mentioned in the book of Revelation. Unless you have a source that states something else, then that is the answer of theologians.

Theologians being theologians, your answer is somewhat simplistic:

The Hebrew word nahash is used to identify the serpent that appears in Genesis 3:1, in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis, the serpent is portrayed as a deceptive creature or trickster, who promotes as good what God had forbidden, and shows particular cunning in its deception. (cf. Gen. 3:4–5 and 3:22) The serpent has the ability to speak and to reason: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made" (Gen. 3:1). There is no indication in the Book of Genesis that the serpent was a deity in its own right, although it is one of only two cases of animals that talk in the Pentateuch (Balaam's donkey being the other).

God placed Adam in the Garden to tend it and warned Adam not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."[13] The serpent tempts Eve to eat of the Tree, but Eve tells the serpent what God had said (Genesis 3:3). The serpent replied that she would not surely die (Genesis 3:4) and that if she eats the fruit of the tree "then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) Eve ate the fruit and gave it to Adam and he also ate. God, who was walking in the Garden, finds out and to prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and living forever, they are banished from the Garden and God posts an angelic guard. The snake is punished for its role in the fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust.

Debate about the serpent in Eden is whether it should be viewed figuratively or as a literal animal. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent representssexual desire.[14]

And then there are theologians who think, as you say, that the serpent is Satan. It seems the jury is still out.

 

[tetley]

Plotinus is the theologian in this thread - anything else is "Ask a random person to interpret the Bible".

Says who?

 

[Arakhor]

Says the normal conventions of these threads, unless of course you are a professional theologian too.

 

[tetley]

The Ask a Russian thread has lots of Russians in it.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Says the normal conventions of these threads, unless of course you are a professional theologian too.

I mean I think this is a pretty elitist tack to take, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't only read this thread for Plot's responses.

 

[Agent327]

The Ask a Russian thread has lots of Russians in it.

Well, that would be the difference with this thread then, wouldn't it. Being a Russian doesn't require academic training.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Well, that would be the difference with this thread then, wouldn't it. Being a Russian doesn't require academic training.

Well neither does being a theologian. But I'm going to put way more stock in someone currently living in Russia as compared to an American whose Great Nana immigrated from St. Petersburg in the 1890s.

 

[warpus]

All we need to do is to find the country of Theologia and send out invitations. This thread could be swarming with Theologians by next Thursday

 

[Agent327]

Well neither does being a theologian.

Actually, it does. Perhaps ask Plotinus about his? I'm pretty sure no one else here is a certified theologian.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Actually, it does. Perhaps ask Plotinus about his? I'm pretty sure no one else here is a certified theologian.

He's not a plumber, dude. It's not like there's some grand theological certification board. Anybody can be a theologian.

 

[timtofly]

Especially one with lots of money to sink into an education where a degree is seen as a means to a salery.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

He's not a plumber, dude. It's not like there's some grand theological certification board. Anybody can be a theologian.

I think the point being made is that Plotinus actually does have real-world academic credentials on the subject of theology.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I think the point being made is that Plotinus actually does have real-world academic credentials on the subject of theology.

And the point I'm trying to make is that discrediting people simply because they don't have those fancy academic credentials is elitist and douchey and precisely the problem people often have with academics. Neither I, nor Dachs, nor Flying Pig nor Ajidica have academic credentials in history beyond undergraduate degrees. People nevertheless seem to respect and listen to what we have to say on the topic of history. Niall Ferguson does have those credentials and that still doesn't seem to stop him from being a total doof.

I respect Plot's opinions on theology because Plot has smart, well-formulated, eloquent things to say on the topic. Not because he's published or teaches at a university. And more importantly, Plot isn't posting in this thread, and hasn't for awhile. So telling people off for posting in a thread in lieu of someone who isn't here and hasn't given an indication of when he'll be back is kind of ridiculous. And it's not like he can't go through and answer these questions in his own time and in his own way once he does come back. Which is what he'd be doing anyway.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Simmer down, I didn't tell anyone off.