Ask a Theologian IV

[timtofly]

Are you suggesting that Muslims in the Middle East have some sort of quasi-mystical bond that governs how they act towards non-believers?

Not quite. Their bond is spiritual. Their law is binding them to outward acts, but the spiritual bond is the internal bond that gives them a like mindeness. It is not the law that binds them together. Their law does however bind them to acts that is the state of their treatment towards others. Laws were never meant to be carried out on non-believers!! Turning one's law into a political force against non-believers is a political move and not a spiritual one.

God has blessed the seed of Abraham and that includes the whole middle east and the descendents of Abraham. There is a great rivalry between the two sides of Abraham's offspring. It can be argued that the grace offered by God through Christendom did away with having to live under the law. This grace did not dissolve the law and one can still be in servitude to such law. You cannot however force people to live by any law, if they do not want to. The law does not guarantee an afterlife. It is more a blind arbitrator for peace on earth. It is hard to humanly justify the perfect rendition of the law. No spiritual binding force on earth was meant to enslave the whole of mankind, but it is a choice of free will to live at peace with one another. In fact, even non-believers can have their own laws that are binding. God has no monopoly on any law.

 

[Masada]

So they have some kind of quasi-mystical spiritual bond that governs how they deal with non-believers? As a Christian, I disagree with you which I think disproves that Christians, and by extension any religious group, have uniform views on any subject.

 

[_random_]

Are you aware of any solid explanations on the difference between begottenness and procession?

Is there any reason to suppose a relationship between the Western Church's emphasis on God's oneness when discussing the Trinity and their tendency toward a single central ecclesiastical authority?

 

[timtofly]

So they have some kind of quasi-mystical spiritual bond that governs how they deal with non-believers? As a Christian, I disagree with you which I think disproves that Christians, and by extension any religious group, have uniform views on any subject.

It is called a family for a reason. While outsiders are welcome, they are not forced to be part of that family. How the family governs themselves has little to do with what forms the family. Any group can call themselves a family and create a governing entity. They can even recruit and force people to join and obey their laws. What you are saying is that there is a predestination requirement that certain religions have to fall under. Or as Owen Glyndwr said, since only one can be a "right" one, the other must be a "wrong" one.

What I am trying to say is: There is a spiritual bond that makes them a family. How they govern themselves is as relative (to this bond) as their social construct which incorporates the way they are governed. We have been indoctrinated to believe that when an individual joins this family, they are doing it because of the rules and regulations of such group. That is not how a spiritual family is formed. In fact this false view is what causes there to be thousands of different splits and why there are multiple major religions. They cannot agree on the dogmas of the other group's rules and social institutions. It is true that the original law given could be construed to be antagonistic against outsiders, but it never forbad any one to join. If the group itself refuses people to join or forces them to change, then that would not be the spirit of the family, but the personal opinions of said family. IMO that would probably mean they are no longer a part of God's family, but have taken on another spirit entirely.

So you can have people quibbling over the "dogmas" or you could have a different family and spirit all together. You can call that "spirit" anything you want. I am just here attemping in a feeble way to explain the concept. As far as I know God opens his arms to all humans on equal terms with no strings attached. It is us humans who put up walls and hinders the welcome.

 

[Mouthwash]

So they have some kind of quasi-mystical spiritual bond that governs how they deal with non-believers? As a Christian, I disagree with you which I think disproves that Christians, and by extension any religious group, have uniform views on any subject.

As a Jew, I'm pretty sure (aside from a few heretics) that most Jews are in agreement that they, as Zionists, should rule the world.

Seriously, you're a Christian? You're way too sardonic.

While I doubt that religion can being people with fundamentally conflicting interests together, religion has often been used to cement some sort of political or social control over another group, whether it be the Brahmins, feudal lords, the Pope, or Adolf Hitler's Nazism (which I believe counts as a religion in its own right). Another example might have been the social and financial laws in the Talmud, which helped the Jews survive and retain their identity in the diaspora (although some of the laws intended to minimize contact between Jews and gentiles had to be scrapped as the Jews could no longer be self-sufficient). This may or may not have been the intention of the authors, but it was written during the diaspora itself, so to me it seems likely that it was a combination of this new imperative reconciled with ancestral customs. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on Jewish history could correct me?

 

[_random_]

You haven't read many martyrdom accounts if you think Christians can't be sarcastic. Some favorite examples:

When then he was brought before him, the proconsul enquired whether he were the man. And on his confessing that he was, he tried to persuade him to a denial saying, 'Have respect to thine age,' and other things in accordance therewith, as it is their wont to say; 'Swear by the genius of Caesar; repent and say, Away with the atheists.' Then Polycarp with solemn countenance looked upon the whole multitude of lawless heathen that were in the stadium, and waved his hand to them; and groaning and looking up to heaven he said, 'Away with the atheists.'

Turn me over; I'm done on this side

 

[Plotinus]

What exactly are the effects of different countries sharing the same religion/belief system? Does it automatically make them friendlier to one another, or is it irrelevant? Sharing culture is, to me, an integral though not universally necessary factor in creating long-term alliances between countries. I haven't studied the rise of Islam, but it seems like the Middle East being united under one faith was a huge determining factor in the hegemony of the Caliphate.

Also, if two countries are already at odds politically or economically, could sharing a religion mediate them to a large extent (to the point of avoiding hostilities)?

I'm not sure. My view is that people tend to hate those who are similar to them more than they hate those who are very different. You see this in both politics and religion. The worst political feuds are those that occur within parties, not between them, and the worst religious disputes are between rival churches, not rival religions.

I can't really think of any examples where I'm sure that similarity of religions has really strengthened relations between countries. I instinctively think of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when you had Catholic countries like Spain and France allying, and Protestant ones like England and the Netherlands. And yet, of course, England and the Netherlands were often at war with each other during that period, and England was also allied to Catholic Portugal. So I'm inclined to think that religious considerations are generally likely to be much less important than more worldly ones in these matters.

Are you aware of any solid explanations on the difference between begottenness and procession?

Not really. A Catholic can say that a key difference between them is that the Son is begotten of the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But it doesn't follow that that's the defining difference between them, and to be honest if it is, then that seems a bit weak to me. I don't know of any Orthodox explanation of the difference, although there must be some.

Is there any reason to suppose a relationship between the Western Church's emphasis on God's oneness when discussing the Trinity and their tendency toward a single central ecclesiastical authority?

I don't think so. This is, in part, because the supposed difference between Catholics and Orthodox on the importance of unity in the Trinity is arguably rather overblown; there's good reason for thinking that really it's just as important to the Orthodox, although they talk about it in a different way. In the Orthodox Trinity the locus of divinity and unity is the (single) Father, whereas in the Catholic Trinity both are shared equally by all three Persons; so an Orthodox could claim that the Orthodox view really gives more reality to the divine unity than the Catholic one does. At any rate I don't see any need to invoke this stuff to explain the different ecclesiastical views of the two churches, since I think that can be explained sufficiently just from the geographical and historical accidents: the Greek-speaking churches had several patriarchs, whereas the Latin-speaking ones had just one.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'm not sure. My view is that people tend to hate those who are similar to them more than they hate those who are very different. You see this in both politics and religion. The worst political feuds are those that occur within parties, not between them, and the worst religious disputes are between rival churches, not rival religions.

I can't really think of any examples where I'm sure that similarity of religions has really strengthened relations between countries. I instinctively think of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when you had Catholic countries like Spain and France allying, and Protestant ones like England and the Netherlands. And yet, of course, England and the Netherlands were often at war with each other during that period, and England was also allied to Catholic Portugal. So I'm inclined to think that religious considerations are generally likely to be much less important than more worldly ones in these matters.

Well that and France and Spain were often at war with each other.

 

[Masada]

I instinctively think of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when you had Catholic countries like Spain and France allying, and Protestant ones like England and the Netherlands.

I instinctively think of the 30 Years War where Protestant Sweden invaded coreligionists Brandenburg, Pomerania and Denmark and only fought with Catholic Austria to defend its conquests and because Catholic France was willing to foot the bill.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is normally a 'gotcha' question, but upon thinking about it, I think it's actually a decent one.

Why do people assume that there will be no sin in Heaven? Are we told that a fundamental part of free will is the capacity to sin? Ostensibly, the angels sinned (kinda) despite being in Heaven. Are there theologians who've pondered this, and what's the popularity of their conclusions?

 

[_random_]

1) I noticed that the KJV doesn't capitalize pronouns referring to God, while some more modern translations do, and the most recent works I can find don't. Do you know anything about the birth and death of this trend?

2) How far does the parallel between the Western Christian notion of grace and the Orthodox notion of energies go?

3) To what extent were Lenten fasting rules developed for pragmatic reasons (e.g.
'Meat is a luxury and takes a lot of time to prepare that could be focused on God") and theological ones (e.g. "Meat comes through violence, which is in some way indicative of our fallenness.")?

 

[ls612]

3) To what extent were Lenten fasting rules developed for pragmatic reasons (e.g.
'Meat is a luxury and takes a lot of time to prepare that could be focused on God") and theological ones (e.g. "Meat comes through violence, which is in some way indicative of our fallenness.")?

I know that to a certain extent this one came about as a result of the influence of the English and north European Fishmongers Guilds (Encouraging fish consumption every friday is good for them).

 

[_random_]

Hm. Could that explain why fish is still forbidden in Orthodox fasts? Although I would think fish merchants would still yield some influence in the Byzantine Empire as well.

 

[Old Hippy]

re fish it was also extended to wednesdays under Elizabeth 1

Spoiler :

This included major statutes for tillage (regulating the use of land and against enclosure); poor relief; artificers (regulating wages and apprenticeship); and the maintenance of the navy. The latter, a particular project of Cecil’s, required the enforcement of fish eating on Wednesdays in addition to Fridays and holy days as ‘political Lent’, and provoked intense debate before it eventually passed
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/parliament/1563

just as an interesting side note

 

[caketastydelish]

In your honest opinion, what is the number one way that Orthodox greeks are more historically in-tune with Christianity than protestants?

 

[_random_]

I do not post like that.

 

[caketastydelish]

Oh I know you don't. It's a really bad parody, which in a dry way makes it even funnier.

 

[Mouthwash]

The third main problem with Dawkins' arguments is that a lot of them are just bad. For example, he makes a great fuss about simplicity and complexity. He argues that any God that created the universe must be incredibly complex, because the universe is very complex, and the cause must be at least as complex as the effect. That doesn't seem clear to me at all. Then he argues that such a God would be very unlikely, because complex things are less probable than simple ones. That too doesn't seem clear to me. In fact Dawkins seems to be unaware of recent work in the philosophy of science, such as that of Elliott Sober, who has argued very convincingly that the principle of parsimony doesn't even hold in science in general. So to try to apply that principle to non-scientific claims such as the cause of the universe is quite unwarranted.

I realize that this post was made quite some time back, but I think you're thinking of this argument made by Dawkins in The God Delusion. He's basically saying that probability warrants that we assume some sort of natural force resulted in the formation of our universe over assuming that God did it. It's really not an argument against God at all, it's an argument against a teleological/design argument for the existence of God.

I also don't understand how the principle of parsimony states that complex things are less probable than simple ones. The stock market depends upon prices created by supply and demand, which are in turn results of interactions of industry, biology, and environment. The weather depends upon complex interactions of terrain, the atmosphere, and the sun. There are much simpler explanations: a stock market god and a weather god. According to that logic, we should accept these deities over science and observation.

 

[Agent327]

A thought occurred to me recently: if the God depicted in the Tanakh/OT is responsible for human character, that fits remarkably well: he displays a curious short-sightedness, pettiness and vindictiveness, paired with utter callousness. (That God is also equally remarkable absent from the NT, if he figures at all.)

However, it would have been impossible for such a deity to have created something so perfectly composed as the universe. Nowadays we have another vision of God: God is omnipotent, eternal, and perfectly good. At first sight that seems to solve the problem. However, one essential quality is missing from this definition. An eternal, omnipotent and perfectly good deity would still be completely unable to create something so infinitely magnificent as the universe if it lacked intelligence.

 

[Mouthwash]

A thought occurred to me recently: if the God depicted in the Tanakh/OT is responsible for human character, that fits remarkably well: he displays a curious short-sightedness, pettiness and vindictiveness, paired with utter callousness. (That God is also equally remarkable absent from the NT, if he figures at all.)

Well, the ancient Judean god was just a regular deity (probably a fusion of the Canaanite pantheon), so it makes sense for him to demand absolute loyalty from his people and get angry like a typical king would. I don't understand your point about the nature of human beings.

However, it would have been impossible for such a deity to have created something so perfectly composed as the universe. Nowadays we have another vision of God: God is omnipotent, eternal, and perfectly good. At first sight that seems to solve the problem. However, one essential quality is missing from this definition. An eternal, omnipotent and perfectly good deity would still be completely unable to create something so infinitely magnificent as the universe if it lacked intelligence.

I have no idea what this means. The Christian God is assumed to have infinite intelligence as well. These definitions aren't set in stone; they evolve along with philosophers' conception of them, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "this exact definition of God" is logically flawed, and then presume that that would disprove the existence of God.