[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[ryanmusante]

A few questions, bare with me.

Revelation 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:"

God is holy and incapable of being in the presence of evil, how could Satan, one of the most powerful angels and perfect in God's sight become corrupted and exist within the same space? Did heaven for a moment become tainted or momentarily corrupt?

Revelation 12:12 "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

What would be the tradeoff of an eternal being cast out into a temporary location within a space time container knowing that with him and the minions that followed, there is but a short time before being returned to judgement and eternal destruction? What is the logic or reasoning behind it?

1 Peter 1:12 "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Why do angels wax philosophic? What more could a being desire or ponder being in the presence of God? Would not all their inquiries and imaginations be made redundant? Would not all their wisdom and knowledge be made nil in the face of God?

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Again, as my former question, how can a perfect being be "made into sin" or share the same space as evil, something that is totally 100% pure good?

Edit: spelling

 

[Hrothbern]

God is holy and incapable of being in the presence of evil, how could Satan, one of the most powerful angels and perfect in God's sight become corrupted and exist within the same space? Did heaven for a moment become tainted or momentarily corrupt?

I see Satan as a human invention to shift the blame of his own shortcomings and misdeeds from his personal responsibility to an outsider he can blame for it.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, if this thread is active again:

1. How do Catholics reconcile natural law (which they base their morality on) with priestly celibacy?

2. If I'm not mistaken the Catholic Church asserts that there is no salvation outside itself - but most Protestants wouldn't deny salvation to all non-Protestants, while Eastern Christianity has a much gentler view of hell. So, would Pascal's Wager mean that non-Catholic Christians should become Catholics? It's one thing to claim that a random religious viewpoint out of dozens or hundreds will allow you to avoid eternal damnation, but if you already think the New Testament is it, why not follow the most exclusive path?

 

[Arakhor]

It's one thing to claim that a random religious viewpoint out of dozens or hundreds will allow you to avoid eternal damnation, but if you already think the New Testament is it, why not follow the most exclusive path?

If a person genuinely believed that non-X people were damned for all eternity after death, wouldn't they want the most inclusive path instead?

 

[MaryKB]

I remember reading how priestly celibacy is something that happened during the middle-ages, because priests owned church property and were bequeathing to their sons, so the Church outlawed marriage so that wouldn't happen any more, and you can see a holdover from this for centuries now. But like for example St Peter in the gospels is mentioned having a wife (well mother-in-law, which means he's married, right? lol).

And Pope Francis even said something like "you're better off being an atheist and a good person than a bad Christian", and in the Catechism you'll find passages (I'm sorry, I forget where!) about paths to salvation are possible, and specifically mentions Jews and Muslims, but also includes others. So basically it's like the whole message really comes down to "love everyone", and you can sort of think of it like them saying "Oh you can certainly maybe find your own way to Heaven, but we recommend you follow us because we've got the map," if I'm making sense?

 

[Mouthwash]

If a person genuinely believed that non-X people were damned for all eternity after death, wouldn't they want the most inclusive path instead?

If A claims only it can save you, and B says that either it or A can save you, isn't A more exclusive?

I remember reading how priestly celibacy is something that happened during the middle-ages, because priests owned church property and were bequeathing to their sons, so the Church outlawed marriage so that wouldn't happen any more, and you can see a holdover from this for centuries now. But like for example St Peter in the gospels is mentioned having a wife (well mother-in-law, which means he's married, right? lol).

Well, it might not have been standard doctrine then but celibacy is justified by Jesus's disciples saying "it is not expedient to marry," and his own words about becoming a eunuch "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Seems pretty close if you ask me.

 

[MaryKB]

I think you're referring to when Jesus is telling his disciples how men can't just cast their wives aside, and how laws Moses set up for protection of women are being abused by men casually. And he's basically agreeing how if you can't be faithful to your wife, then yes you probably shouldn't get married, and you can choose not to.

 

[sophie]

2. If I'm not mistaken the Catholic Church asserts that there is no salvation outside itself - but most Protestants wouldn't deny salvation to all non-Protestants, while Eastern Christianity has a much gentler view of hell. So, would Pascal's Wager mean that non-Catholic Christians should become Catholics? It's one thing to claim that a random religious viewpoint out of dozens or hundreds will allow you to avoid eternal damnation, but if you already think the New Testament is it, why not follow the most exclusive path?

Luther's beef and ultimate break with the Catholic Church rested in the fact that he felt the trappings of salvation (i.e. the emphasis on performance of the sacraments and doing good works) were misguided, and imperiled the salvation of believers by making them complacent and falsely comforted in the absoluteness of their presumed salvation. Salvation only comes via the Spirit, and the Spirit can only be allowed in through internal self-reflection.

This is all to say that the two branches are more mutually exclusive than you think. If you are a Protestant then you don't believe you can be saved by works, so some of the Catholic sacraments are fluff that engender vanity and misguide the Elect, and if you take Pascal's wager and become a Catholic (while secretly holding Protestant sentiments), then you are simply a bad Catholic and aren't saved under either doctrine.

Pascal's wager fails because salvation in all schools which offer such demand the beliefs be held firmly and genuinely in the soul. Therefore, genuine belief in one is mutually exclusive with genuine beliefs in all others.

 

[Arakhor]

If A claims only it can save you, and B says that either it or A can save you, isn't A more exclusive?

That doesn't disagree with what I was saying.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think you're referring to when Jesus is telling his disciples how men can't just cast their wives aside, and how laws Moses set up for protection of women are being abused by men casually. And he's basically agreeing how if you can't be faithful to your wife, then yes you probably shouldn't get married, and you can choose not to.

How are you getting any of that from this:

"The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”

His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”

I suppose it's a possible interpretation (maybe a teeny bit contrived), but how do you know that's what he meant? Why couldn't he have just said as much?

That doesn't disagree with what I was saying.

Then I'm not sure what your disagreement is.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel Jesus is very clearly saying many men aren't capable of respecting their wives. You also have to consider historical context and sexism, I really don't see how anything you quoted contradicts what I've said? He's basically saying "man up, treat women with respect, don't be a dick", and "if you can't, then don't pursue women", it seems to make perfect sense to me?

 

[Mouthwash]

I've no idea where you're getting all this. It seems like he's saying that God created marriage to be indissoluble, that remarrying and having sex with the new wife is adultery, and that everyone who could avoid marriage ought to do so (i.e. those who serve God). If he's really just criticizing actions by husbands here, why can't women who are divorced remarry?

 

[MaryKB]

He was questioned about divorcing wives, and he said you can only divorce your wife if she's committed adultery, and people were confused by this; he's responding to men who want to just cast their wives aside and not provide support to her for no valid reason, his basic message really is "don't be a dick, treat women with respect", something men really seem to struggle understand, you know what I mean? Some men really just don't seem to get this, and I totally agree with Jesus that if you can't, then you're better off just staying celibate.

 

[Mouthwash]

"Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”

What does this mean, in your view?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I've no idea where you're getting all this. It seems like he's saying that God created marriage to be indissoluble, that remarrying and having sex with the new wife is adultery, and that everyone who could avoid marriage ought to do so (i.e. those who serve God).

I think MaryKB's interpretation makes a lot more sense than the idea that "everyone who could avoid marriage ought to do so (i.e. those who serve God)". Marriage, including sexual pleasure, was a Mitzvah in Judaism, a good deed that one should pursue when possible, not a sin that should be avoided when possible.

 

[Farm Boy]

Unless I'm super off base, we find the celibacy of Catholic priests not directly in scripture, but in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord", they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God."

Unless I found the wrong thing. But I'm pretty sure that's it along with the reasoning.

 

[Berzerker]

A few questions, bare with me.

God is holy and incapable of being in the presence of evil, how could Satan, one of the most powerful angels and perfect in God's sight become corrupted and exist within the same space? Did heaven for a moment become tainted or momentarily corrupt?

Regarding that verse about 1/3rd of the stars of Heaven falling:

Revelation 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:"

In older Mesopotamian myth the sky was divided up into thirds with the southern band belonging to Enki/Ea, the northern band to his brother Enlil, and the central to their father An/Anu. They had a zodiac of 12 constellations in the central section following the ecliptic determining the 'ages' but a total of 36 with the north and south sections included - this was the original "trinity".

These brothers - Enki and Enlil - were not always on the best of terms. For example, it was Enlil who demanded the gods remain silent about the impending Deluge while Enki - man's maker - told the Sumerian "Noah" how to avoid death. When the gods returned to Earth having fled the Flood, Enlil was angered to find man had survived but relented anyway.

Jesus spoke of the Serpent as one who has knowledge (the Garden story describes the Serpent's gift of knowledge) - '“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. - Matt 10-16

The 1/3rd of the stars reference could refer to the Serpent's section of the sky symbolizing Enki's "fall" from the Heavens. This is why the Bible depicts the relationship between God and Satan in rather perplexing terms, it was a power struggle between Anu's 2 sons.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think MaryKB's interpretation makes a lot more sense than the idea that "everyone who could avoid marriage ought to do so (i.e. those who serve God)". Marriage, including sexual pleasure, was a Mitzvah in Judaism, a good deed that one should pursue when possible, not a sin that should be avoided when possible.

I don't think that the guy who asked people to eat his flesh and drink his blood is much of an authority on Jewish teachings.

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't think that the guy who asked people to eat his flesh and drink his blood is much of an authority on Jewish teachings.

Which Jewish teachings ?
There was already great diversity in Jewish teachings in late Hellenistic times, and after the insult of Pompey to enter personally the Holy of Holies of the Temple, marking the Roman way to deal with local religious sentiments, Jewish teaching were in disarray leading to more diversity.
Which Jewish teachings ???

 

[Mouthwash]

Any mainstream one. You can find all sorts of cults if you root around long enough.

Besides, it was Magister who referred to 'Jewish values' in the first place, so why am I the one getting the third degree?