Ask a Theologian III

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you are saying that atheism is a belief, as in a "belief system", not simply a "conclusion" that they reached that "there is probably no god".
 
So you are saying that atheism is a belief, as in a "belief system", not simply a "conclusion" that they reached that "there is probably no god".
I'm not saying it's necessarily a belief system, but it certainly is a belief about the world. I see no reason to distinguish between, in terms of mental processes, "There is no God," "There is a God," and "There are apples." They are statements about the world that you may hold to be true, and may be true or false. Belief in God might become wrapped up in stuff that believing in his nonexistence may not be -- for instance, in a system of values -- but I don't see why this is necessarily the case, nor why even if that were necessary so, that would make believing in God's nonexistence any less of a belief.

I agree that a theist responding to an atheist by saying "Well, atheism is just a belief too!" is being lame. But that's not because is not a belief, it's because that statement says absolutely nothing of value. Atheism is a belief -- so what? The question is whether or not it is a true belief. To answer that question, you'd have to appeal to different sorts of evidence, which is what atheists do anyway. I really don't think classifying atheism as a belief changes anything, besides correcting a rather bizarre distinction.
 
It is not a "belief about the world", but more a "conclusion reached about the world".

The article I linked goes on to say the atheists should refrain from describing their position as a "belief" as it is likely to be misconstrued by "believers" against them, and a better word to use is "conclusion". I had already been trying to do this before I had even read the article for the same reasons I found when discussing this area.
 
To what degree can Manichean and Mazadaist/Zorastarian influence be found in Christianity?
 
When referring to atheism, belief is the wrong word. Atheism is a view held about the world, so it's in the right ballpark, but it's the wrong word because it heavily connotes faith. Atheism has a distinct lack of faith.
 
It is not a "belief about the world", but more a "conclusion reached about the world".

The article I linked goes on to say the atheists should refrain from describing their position as a "belief" as it is likely to be misconstrued by "believers" against them, and a better word to use is "conclusion". I had already been trying to do this before I had even read the article for the same reasons I found when discussing this area.
But how is that substantively different? I have reached a conclusions about the world ("God exists," "I am sitting in a chair," "Apples are tasty") by examining evidence and coming to a conclusion. What's the distinction? What is the criteria by which you're distinguishing between "beliefs" and "conclusions"?

I honestly don't see one, aside from "Well, I am an atheist, so I want there to be a distinction." But that's just wishful thinking. ;)
 
But how is that substantively different? I have reached a conclusions about the world ("God exists," "I am sitting in a chair," "Apples are tasty") by examining evidence and coming to a conclusion. What's the distinction? What is the criteria by which you're distinguishing between "beliefs" and "conclusions"?

I honestly don't see one, aside from "Well, I am an atheist, so I want there to be a distinction." But that's just wishful thinking. ;)

Because two of those are objective facts which can be proven, or disproved. The other one is a subjective belief which can neither be proven nor disproved.
 
But how is that substantively different? I have reached a conclusions about the world ("God exists," "I am sitting in a chair," "Apples are tasty") by examining evidence and coming to a conclusion. What's the distinction? What is the criteria by which you're distinguishing between "beliefs" and "conclusions"?

I honestly don't see one, aside from "Well, I am an atheist, so I want there to be a distinction." But that's just wishful thinking. ;)

Would you ever describe this apple as "sanguine", unless you wanted to deliberately weave a bloody tone?


In the same vein, saying that atheism is a "belief" is deliberate obfuscation of its meaning (another way one could be disingenuous would be to accuse you of "raping" the English language.). It is merely an attempt to obscure the fact that the question of whether there is a God has a totally objective answer.
 
@Karalysia: Well said.

@Elrohir:

From Wiki
"A conclusion is a proposition which is reached after considering the evidence, arguments or premises."
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"
As you can see a belief is only related to how valid a person thinks a premise is, whereas a conclusion goes more deeply, in that it includes, evidence and arguments in addition to premises.
 
In the same vein, saying that atheism is a "belief" is deliberate obfuscation of its meaning (another way one could be disingenuous would be to accuse you of "raping" the English language.). It is merely an attempt to obscure the fact that the question of whether there is a God has a totally objective answer.
No, it's not, because that's not the question. I think we can all agree that there is an objective answer to the question of whether or not God exists, just as we can all agree that there is an objective answer to whether there is an apple in my stomach, or on my head. The question is about the nature of that answer -- is it a yes or a no?

From Wiki
as you can see a belief is only related to the validity of a premise, whereas a conclusion goes more deeply, in that it includes, evidence and arguments in addition to premises.
According to your definition, a conclusion is a sort of proposition. According to your definition, belief is "the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." It seems reasonable, then, to assert that you hold, or believe, a conclusion. (Remember, the definition of belief that you provided did not include a qualifier of propositions that would exclude those based on evidence.) In other words, when you hold a conclusion to be true, you are holding a proposition to be true, and you are therefore believing something. So in actuality, your definitions work quite well for my point, thanks.

I believe at this point, we should let the thread go back to its original purpose. None of you are providing even remotely interesting arguments, anyway. (Plotinus, if you can jump in with any sort of theological implications of this back and forth, I'd be grateful! But feel free to ignore/delete it otherwise.) If any of you still cannot see my point, feel free to open a thread or PM me.
 
Can some one explain to me why the human race seems to have been set up for failure since Day 1 according to the Bible? I mean, why would you put the one thing that you DON'T want humans to even touch directly into their living space? Why not put the Tree of Knowledge on the opposite side of the planet on top of a mountain if it has to exist at all? It just seems as if God wanted Adam to fail by all but ensuring he would be tempted.

Also, giving human beings the ability to use rational thought and then telling them to have faith like a child....that was not cool.
 
Has there been much thought on whether Human souls have a gender?

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that the traditional view is that they don't.

A friend of mine is a deacon's kid, and offered to sell me some pre-consecrated hosts she found in her home. Is there anything in canon law that explicitly prohibits this? Has anybody ever tried this? Would you be interested partaking of the body and blood of Christ without sitting through a church service for a very reasonable fee?

This is not something I've ever heard of, so I can't really answer. I'd find it surprising that pre-consecrated hosts could be left lying around for children to get their hands on. I'm quite sure that selling them would be quite off limits, because consecrated hosts are normally treated very carefully. The communion service includes a bit where the priest finishes off any leftover bits himself. This is, in theory, to prevent Satanists from getting their hands on them and using them for unspeakable purposes. Precisely how likely that is, though, I'm not sure.

Speaking of deacons' kids, can you tell me about kid deacons? I've heard that many Oriental Orthodox Churches will ordain children to the diaconate. How common is this? What is the history of the practice? Can children deacons still get married after their ordination?[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid that's not something I've heard of either, so I can't say.

What, if any, is the meaningful difference between deism and atheism? How is the distinction not a completely arbitrary decision on the part of the believer?

Well, deism is the belief that there is a God who created the world, but that he hasn't interacted with the world or done anything interesting since then. Atheism is the belief that there is no God at all (or, at least, the absence of belief in one). So they're clearly quite different beliefs.

I suppose the motivation for being a deist rather than an atheist would be the belief that the existence of the world does require some kind of explanation and the best one is God; the motivation for being a deist rather than a theist (i.e. someone who thinks God has continued to do things) is a rationalist rejection of the specific doctrines of the various religions. At least, that is how deism came about historically; people accepted the arguments for God's existence that had, overall, been largely unquestioned for centuries, but they could not accept the teachings of particular religions.

However, given that the arguments for God's existence have largely broken down since then, it's hard to see much motivation for deism today. Anyone who's going to reject religious claims on rational grounds is unlikely to be convinced by the proofs for God's existence. This is why there are very few deists today. I'm not sure I've ever met one. Historically speaking, deism should really be regarded as a halfway house from theism to atheism.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church regards belief in the teachings of the Church to be essential for someone to be considered Catholic. At least, this is the impression I got from my Catholic teachers when I was young. Is there any truth to this?

Of course - if someone doesn't believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, by what definition could they be considered a Catholic?

Have I tried to believe in God the wrong way ? - a bit of background.

When I was growing up, I spent many years at "Bible Study" and then joining friends at church meetings studying the Bible. At the same time my father would have a "circular" argument. Who created God ? Nature - Who created Nature ? God and so on.

In addition, my parents made us read encyclopedias at home to keep us up to date with information and science. Later in my early 20's, I saw the classic film "The Ten Commandments" in the picture theatre as a special feature. A friend who was with me thought we should join a church. Which we did and he went on to study theology and become a priest. I left to to another country. There, I re-commenced my study at another church. However, no matter what I did, I just could not "believe". I suspect it comes from my focus on facts and logic in my early years with encyclopedia and maths.

So what I discovered is that the way many Christian's try to teach you to believe in God is as follows;

Read Jesus' acts and life;then believe in Jesus as your Savour; then read the rest of the Bible and then believe in God. So in short: Jesus-> Bible-> God. (I think he says somewhere, no-one gets to God except through me, which may explain this teaching method).

Whereas I take a different approach God -> Bible -> Jesus. i.e. Prove "God exists" and then the rest follows.

I have never been able to get past "Believe in God". I ask myself, Which God ? There are so many, which religion is right. So which religion is right because they all say they are the right one and all the others are wrong. No objective analysis can be made as they are all subjective of the others.

So after about 20+ years of study and research in to the Bible and other religions, I have become an "Atheist". For me "science" is what I use to get an understanding of the world and beyond, and I accept that this is never-ending journey of discovery. And for me quite simply "God does not exist", as there will eventually be an answer to most questions. Maybe not in my lifetime, or not 1,000 years in the future, but the "not knowing" does not cause me any problems.

There's no "right" way or "wrong" way. You mention that in your experience Christians typically see Jesus as the first thing to believe in, followed by the Bible and then God, as if Jesus were a sort of gateway drug to the harder stuff. But some people have gone the other way too. I remember a talk by Keith Ward in which he said that for him it was quite the reverse: he was interested in God as the object of spiritual or mystical experiences, and it was only after coming to believe in him that he came to be interested in Jesus. Perhaps that reflects a typically liberal approach, and the one you mention is more typically evangelical - after all, only an evangelical would include "Bible" in the progression from Jesus to God!

At any rate, I don't think belief in God or in most other things can be attained by trying. The notion that it's possible to believe in something simply by trying to do so is known as "doxastic voluntarism", and some philosophers think that it's true, but it seems highly implausible to me, at least on the face of it. If you believe something, then you think it's actually true. How can you just decide to think that something's true?

Of course, we have control over our beliefs in some ways. For example, I can give myself the belief that it's dark by turning off the light. (Examples such as this lead most philosophers to accept indirect doxastic voluntarism, the notion that we have indirect control over [some of] our beliefs). But it's one thing to give myself a belief about the environment by changing the environment; it's quite another to give myself a belief by changing myself, which is what the attempt to believe in God is.

It is, perhaps, possible to train oneself to believe something, perhaps by deliberately living in a society where everyone else believes it, and hoping that subconscious peer pressure will eventually change your beliefs. The tendency of people to convert, subconsciously at first, to the prevailing beliefs of a society when totally immersed in it is well known, and perhaps one could intend for this to happen - that would be an example of choosing to believe something and then taking steps to bring about this belief. But I think it would be a pretty peculiar thing to do. Apart from anything else, if I, right now, think that a certain belief is false, why would I want to make myself think that it's true?

Didn't Jesus basically make our salvation dependent on our behavior, like in the Lord's Prayer - forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?

No, I don't see any indication there that your forgiveness is dependent upon your forgiving other people, only that there is a parallel between the two. Indeed Jesus' habit of dining with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other undesirables, without, apparently, demanding any repentance from them, suggests that, like Jewish religious teachers of the day, he thought that divine forgiveness is not conditional upon anything that people do.

And wasn't a bunch of this talk about "sin" etc really about the rules of cleanliness for the Jewish priesthood?

No, those are quite different issues.

I read somewhere Jesus claim to the House of David was challenged and that his conception did not occur during the right time of year.

I don't know where you've picked that up from. I don't know that there's any good reason to suppose that Jesus had any claim to belong to the "House of David" in the first place; that's a later Christian notion. As for his conception, no-one has the faintest idea what time of year Jesus was born or conceived.

He did seem to focus a lot of his scorn on the upholders of such laws.

There's not much material in the Gospels about the priesthood. You may be confusing this issue with the attacks on the Pharisees, who were quite different, and had their own laws distinct from the general laws that were binding on everyone.

My minister contends that 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 is actually a mistranslation that should read 'young woman'. Is this so?

As I understand it, the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain - it could be either. The Septuagint translated it as parthenos, which does mean "virgin", and so the early Christians were quite convinced that this translation was correct. However, I don't know any good reason to suppose that the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth was based upon this understanding of the verse from Isaiah.

I am inclined to accept this position. Is atheism a belief ? - No

I must disagree with the author of the piece; I don't see that the word "belief" has overtones of "faith", which he also doesn't define. I would use the word "belief" to mean any proposition which a person thinks is true, irrespective of the reasons why they think it true. This, at least, is the standard philosophical sense of the term, so naturally I take it to be the normal one.

The author tries to address this point when he distinguishes between different meanings of the word "belief", but I think he makes it more complicated than it need be. He seems to think that we can meaningfully distinguish between opinions which are held on a rational basis ("conclusions") and those that are not ("beliefs"). But, first, the dividing line between these is going to be extremely vague. There is no agreement regarding what conditions make an opinion rationally held. Even if there were, an opinion could be held for both rational and irrational reasons (e.g. someone believes something on the basis that her parents do, and then investigates later on and concludes that it really is true).

Moreover, it's surely obvious that some atheists may hold atheism for rational reasons while others may not; I don't see why an atheist who is an atheist because she was brought up as an atheist has any more claim to rationality on the matter than a theist who is a theist because she was brought up as a theist. In which case, if you're going to apply the term "belief" only to beliefs that people hold on the basis of faith rather than reason, you can't draw a neat distinction between theism as a belief and atheism as a non-belief, because there will be at least some atheists who do not hold this view on rational grounds.

To put it more succinctly, if the distinction between "belief" and "conclusion" is one of the basis of a belief, or how one acquires it, then you can't map that distinction neatly onto the content of a belief (or opinion, or whatever).

Atheism cannot be a matter of "Not believing in X," because then anything could be said to be an atheist -- chairs, stars, pebbles, whatever -- because those things do not have positive beliefs that God exists (Or that anything exists, as far as we can tell -- the ultimate skeptics!). It's obviously absurd to say that my chair is an atheist, yet it is also obviously true that my chair does not believe in God. It seems far more reasonable to say that only things capable of having beliefs can be meaningfully said to be atheists. (If you don't think that's so, please find me an example of a thing that cannot hold a belief that may be an atheist, or can hold a belief and logically cannot be an atheist) From there, it seems to make imminent sense to simply relabel an atheist as a being, capable of holding a belief, who believes that God does not exist. (Which would be of the form "believing in Not X," instead of "Not believing in X.") The exact same argument could be made for unicorns or a round earth or aliens or whatever you like.

That's a very nice point - I like that.

Argue how you will about whether atheism is a "religion," or an example of "faith," but it is certainly a belief that you hold about the world. I honestly don't see how you can argue otherwise.

The thing here is that "atheism" seems to be used in so many different ways. In particular, some people take it to be the belief that there is no God, whereas other people take it to be an absence of belief in God. The former is certainly a belief about the world, as you rightly say, but the latter is not, or if it is, it is not so clear that it is.

To bring this back on topic: Plotinus, do you know what the traditional Christian standard of drunkenness was? There's no clear Scriptural condemnation of drinking alcoholic beverages (Several likely endorsements, actually), but drunkenness has pretty much always been seen as a sin. Is it just some sort of "results" standard -- If a monk throws up in church, he's on bread and water for forty days! -- or was there any sort of "this much is too much for anyone" idea? How much thought was this given in the early Church, and onward until the medieval?

Again, I'm not sure that there was ever much rubric on this. If anything, I should think it was a "results" standard. Of course in the early church there were great differences in attitudes to acceptable behaviour, ranging from the "moderation in everything" approach of Clement of Alexandria, which was indistinguishable (and indeed copied) from standard Roman moralists, to the "avoid pretty much everything" approach of the Syrian church and many gnostics. See Clement's advice here, to the effect that a bit of wine with meals is OK, but young people should avoid it because it exacerbates lust, and you don't want to end up like those dreadful common people throwing up in the gutter.

To what degree can Manichean and Mazadaist/Zorastarian influence be found in Christianity?

I don't think there's much clear evidence of either. It's sometimes said that gnosticism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, but this is really on the basis of apparent similarities between them, rather than of clear evidence of influence. If there was any influence from Zoroastrianism to Christianity, I should think it would have been via Judaism, but I don't know what evidence, if any, there is of influence from Zoroastrianism upon Judaism. As for Manichaeism, there again I don't think there's much evidence. Some people have argued that Augustine of Hippo never really shook off his Manichaeism and that its influence crept into Christianity via him, especially with regard to original sin, but I don't think that that theory is very popular these days.

When referring to atheism, belief is the wrong word. Atheism is a view held about the world, so it's in the right ballpark, but it's the wrong word because it heavily connotes faith. Atheism has a distinct lack of faith.

As I say, I don't think that "belief" has such a connotation; but even if it does, what's "faith" anyway? Isn't that an even vaguer term? Moreover, as I said above, is it intrinsic to atheism that faith isn't involved? Couldn't someone be an atheist "on faith" just as much as someone can be a theist?

Besides, at least some theists believe in God because they think God's existence can be rationally proved or at least shown to be highly likely from a rational examination of the evidence. Should their belief in God not be called "belief" because they hold it on this basis rather than on the basis of "faith"?

Can some one explain to me why the human race seems to have been set up for failure since Day 1 according to the Bible? I mean, why would you put the one thing that you DON'T want humans to even touch directly into their living space? Why not put the Tree of Knowledge on the opposite side of the planet on top of a mountain if it has to exist at all? It just seems as if God wanted Adam to fail by all but ensuring he would be tempted.

Also, giving human beings the ability to use rational thought and then telling them to have faith like a child....that was not cool.

We've been through the Eden story pretty exhaustively just a couple of pages ago. I said there that it's not susceptible to these sorts of objections because it's not that sort of story.

It's like saying: "How can Mario go back to level 60 and defeat Bowser again, when he's already defeated him? And how can Luigi play the same level after Mario's already done it? It doesn't make sense!" A game (at least, a Japanese console game) doesn't make sense if you insist on interpreting it as a linear story, but that doesn't mean it's incoherent or that the designers didn't think it through; it just means that it's not that kind of story. Similarly, it's easy to poke holes in the Eden story if you view it as a conventional modern narrative, but it isn't - it's a myth patched together from different, earlier myths, each with a different point.
 
When I was a child, I used to pray for Satan, so that he too would be saved and end up in Heaven. Was it heretical for me, as a catholic? What's the Church's opinion on salvation of devils?
 
I am an atheist on the basis of assumption, not of belief, but I can accept that other atheists may be atheists on belief. It depends on the atheist. My view is, "I don't believe that God exists," which is not equivalent to, "I believe that God doesn't exist."


Pebbles are atheists in the same way as pebbles are dead: they never had the possibility of being the opposite.
 
To what degree can Manichean and Mazadaist/Zorastarian influence be found in Christianity?

I don't think there's much clear evidence of either. It's sometimes said that gnosticism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, but this is really on the basis of apparent similarities between them, rather than of clear evidence of influence. If there was any influence from Zoroastrianism to Christianity, I should think it would have been via Judaism, but I don't know what evidence, if any, there is of influence from Zoroastrianism upon Judaism.

There are many things that Christianity "borrowed" from Zoroastrianism. For example religious dualism, concept of "Saviour", "optimistic" eschatology about final victory of Good and concept of rising from dead of all people (maybe also a "chvarenah" [previous sumerian/akadian "melammu"] which was a glow surounding sacred people).

Important thing is that also Satan (devil) is probably a direct influence from Persian religion. At first Jews believed in Sheol - place where souls live in "half-dream". There was no such thing as concept of reward or punishment after death. Later Jews created a concept of God punishing men for their sins. But, because idea of Hell was nonexistent, people believed that God will punish men during their life - that he will crush them (with death or illness), kill their children or ruin crops:

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:

16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your ancestors. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the LORD will drive you.

38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them. 40 You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off. 41 You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity. 42 Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail.

45 All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the LORD your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. 46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, 48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

49 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the LORD your God is giving you.

53 Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.

58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God— 59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. 63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. 67 In the morning you will say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening, “If only it were morning!”—because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. 68 The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

Deut. 28, 15-68



But Jews rather quickly relised that such concept is false - they observed rich and healthy sinners that were living peacefully and died peacefully:

3 For I envied the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.

4 They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong.[a]
5 They are free from common human burdens;
they are not plagued by human ills.
6 Therefore pride is their necklace;
they clothe themselves with violence.
7 From their callous hearts comes iniquity;
their evil imaginations have no limits.
8 They scoff, and speak with malice;
with arrogance they threaten oppression.
9 Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
and their tongues take possession of the earth.
10 Therefore their people turn to them
and drink up waters in abundance.[c]
11 They say, “How would God know?
Does the Most High know anything?”

12 This is what the wicked are like—
always free of care, they go on amassing wealth.

Ps. 73, 3-12


14 “You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the LORD Almighty? 15 But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’”

Ml 3, 14


14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve.

Ecclesiastes 8, 14


So they created a Hell - place where justice will be preserved - but after death:

23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

Iz 66, 23-24


Also at first Jews believed that it is God who commands all what is good and evil:

6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

Am. 3,6


7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Iz. 45,7


But later they realised that it does not sound good when you want to teach about "merciful God" that is pure good and loves absolutely everyone. So they looked at Persian religion where there were two gods - Ahura Mazda (good one) and Ahriman (Aryman in my language - the evil one). Ahura Mazda (or Ormuzd) was responsible for all what was good and Ahriman - for all what was evil. There was a constant war between them. Jews liked that story and created an anti-God - Satan, so the God could be free of charges when something evil happened. Of course that rose many new problems such as questions why all-merciful and all-powerfull God did not destroy Satan once and for all, but Jews soon found an answer ;)

Actually it is quite interesting - according to that there can't exist a supreme being which is both extremely merciful/good and all--powerfull. If he is "pure good" he would destroy evil once and for all - but he is clearly not doing it, so it implies his weakness (being not all-powerfull). If he is all-powerfull, but do not want to destroy evil (which he clearly does not want to), then he cannot be "pure good".
 
So, as I said, none of those things came to Christianity from Zoroastrianism directly, but via Judaism. For example, the idea of the dead rising at the eschaton came to Christianity from Pharisaism.

But is there actual evidence that Judaism got the ideas you mention from Zoroastrianism? Or is it just a guess based on their similarity? That's the important question. But I don't really know about these topics at all.
 
When referring to atheism, belief is the wrong word. Atheism is a view held about the world, so it's in the right ballpark, but it's the wrong word because it heavily connotes faith. Atheism has a distinct lack of faith.

Is me saying there is no such thing as apples a lack of faith? No, because the existence of apples is a given, and so me denying that given requires more faith than accepting it.

In God's case, both believing in and not believing in God are accepted as valid conclusions in America, but I still think Atheism requires a bit more faith because it demands we are all here, because we are.

It's also a fact, not a belief.

:lol: but wrong. Its an opinion, a belief.
 
When I was a child, I used to pray for Satan, so that he too would be saved and end up in Heaven. Was it heretical for me, as a catholic? What's the Church's opinion on salvation of devils?

The provincial Council of Constantinople of 543 condemned that belief, but I am not sure how authoritative that council is in the Catholic Church, since it was not an ecumenical. The document containing the anathemas in question (against Origenism) was signed by Pope Vigilius as well as the eastern patriarchs, although that does not, in itself, make something definitive from a Catholic point of view, since popes may err.
 
Do angels have free will? What do the various theologians think on this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom