Ask a Theologian

Status
Not open for further replies.
The concept of a good God is one of the essentials of christianity. However, in the Bible there are more than just a few sections where that goodness and morality can be seen at least disputable:

The promise to not destroy the world again after the Flood - the Revelation's clear "God's wrath" and the following destruction of the world. The promise has been translated as literal in defense against this argument, but in that case it could be seen quite deceptive.

The commandment not to kill - numerous situations where deaths can be clearly liked to divine intervention according to the Bible, among them the deaths of dozens of children who only mocked a prophet, and Job's family, who died because their relative was too perfect

The decision to make David count the people of Israel - the passage where Satan is accused of this

And many others.

Is there any objective morality in christianity, if there is, then what is it, as such things can be tolerated from a good god, or is this just a misunderstanding?

A lot of the problems you identify emerge from a conservative evangelical view of the Bible where the whole thing needs to be read literally to have meaning, and then qualified to make sense.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. If you believe God is good, then ignore/cut/radically reinterpret the bits that present God in another light.

Those of us who are Christians are not Jews because we give a particular weight to the life and actions of Jesus - thus, it would anything that seems inconsistent with the figure of Jesus (ie death, destruction, unbalanced wrath, evil being given a free reign) needs to be reconsidered with that in mind.
 
No.
More the real reason why human have the need to personify evil in an entity, more precisely in Christianity. While other religions are not mentioned of it. That's why I ask! Quite :confused: nes pa?

If I can chip into this one too, I'd suggest its been a product of misinterpretation and tying together several otherwise disconnected concepts.

In the Hebrew Bible (before Christianity was around), we've got an evil figure in Genesis (the snake) who emboddies deception , and 'Satan' or the accuser who appears elsewhere - a nasty, tough figure who plays the embodiment of anger, treachery and mallice

In the Greek world, Hades is lord of the underworld.

The anti-Christ in the New Testament is an embodiment of evil and challenge to the church, although many scholars would suggest this figure refers to literal, historical characters (ie Nero).

We've got an unfortunate tendency to simplify things (as I'm doing in this post) - I'd suggest that over the past 2000 years, we've simply lumped all these negative images into one - an evil embodiment of deception who rules the dead of the underworld.
 
A lot of the problems you identify emerge from a conservative evangelical view of the Bible where the whole thing needs to be read literally to have meaning, and then qualified to make sense.

I'd like to hear what exactly those literalists, conservative evangelicals say about this.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. If you believe God is good, then ignore/cut/radically reinterpret the bits that present God in another light.

If someone thinks God is a violent killer-torturer, can intepret it with the same system, leaving away the parts not supporting his view. How can one know who is right?

Those of us who are Christians are not Jews because we give a particular weight to the life and actions of Jesus - thus, it would anything that seems inconsistent with the figure of Jesus (ie death, destruction, unbalanced wrath, evil being given a free reign) needs to be reconsidered with that in mind.

But those things are often twisted to fit what my earlier examole shows
 
Yep, acknowledge that, I just think they are wrong :D.

Seriously, if one wants to believe God is a killer-torturer, not much can be done to stop them. I just don't think that's a helpful way of approaching the Bible. If one calls oneself Christian (Christ-one), then their primary mode of reading should be through the lens of Jesus' life and actions, not from the viewpoint of some sadistic war God, which Israel obviously thought Yahweh was at points in the old testament.
 
Yep, acknowledge that, I just think they are wrong :D.

I hope you understand now why I don't believe in any gods.

Seriously, if one wants to believe God is a killer-torturer, not much can be done to stop them. I just don't think that's a helpful way of approaching the Bible. If one calls oneself Christian (Christ-one), then their primary mode of reading should be through the lens of Jesus' life and actions, not from the viewpoint of some sadistic war God, which Israel obviously thought Yahweh was at points in the old testament.

It's an issue of hypocrisy because many american evangelicals twist the Bible to suit their own personal opinions which are completely different from the principles of freedom, pacifism and equality Jesus preached.
 
The problem I have with it being "kill" is the fact that in many other books of the OT the Israelites are in fact commanded to kill individuals and members of groups; how is that to be reconciled with an interpretation of the commandment as "don't kill"?

That's only a problem if you assume that all these books must be consistent with each other. An alternative approach might be to suppose that the bloodier books of the Old Testament were written earlier and represent a more primitive understanding of the divine on the part of the Hebrews, while the Pentateuch was written later and represents a rather more enlightened view (even, perhaps, a tacit criticism of the earlier books).

Don't if it was already ask, but: Why Christianaty create the anti-christ (the devel), if in others religion there are none? Or are there?

There are figures or principles of evil in other, and older, religions, such as Zoroastrianism. Margim's answer to this is pretty good.

How would you respond to this?
"Theology has justifications for anything God does, no matter how heinous it might seem to be."

Probably true, in the same way that a clever lawyer can find a way to defend anyone. Whether it's a good defence is another matter.

Okay, I got a tough one unfortunately and I dont know if I can ask it properly

In "Hamlet's Mill" a German author is cited who did a study of Dante's Inferno and his sources (Virgil?) concluding that Dante's description of approaching the red (river?) gates of Hades or Purgatory was from the perspective of someone leaving Heaven.

Put another way, Dante describes a celestial voyage thru the layers of Heaven and Hell, but the transition from Heaven to Hell is marked by a red river with 2 guardians and he describes entering this transition zone coming from Heaven. What do you make of all that? Who was Dante's oldest source for his story? I know it goes back to the Romans and Greeks but does it go back further?

Now this I really don't know, as I don't really know much about Dante. I can tell you that the earliest Christian source for Dante's basic idea is Walafrid Strabo (809-49). Don't know if it will help with your query, but here's some information on Walafrid that I put together a while ago:

Walafrid – or Walahfrid – was one of the most prominent luminaries of the latter part of the “Carolingian Renaissance”, most famous for his poems and his botanical studies, but also important in reflecting the thinking of the time on Purgatory.

Walafrid was a native of Alemmania in southwest Germany, and seems to have acquired the name “Strabo” or “squinted” from a genuine physical feature. He was educated at the monastery of Reichenau, on an island in the Rhine. Here, as a teenager, he met Gottschalk, with whom he remained friends for the rest of his life. It was also during this time that Walafrid wrote a number of poems, including his famous Visio Wettini, written when he was only 18. The poem described a vision which the monk Wetti, one of Walafrid’s tutors, experienced the night before his death, and was apparently based on a prose version of Wetti’s own description. Accounts of visions were popular in the ninth century – indeed, the part of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues that deals with them was one of the most copied works of the time. The Visio Wettini, however, was one of the longest, and the first to take a poetic form – indeed, the first to be cast as “literature” rather than a simple report. Thus, Walafrid’s work can be seen as a sort of fore-runner of Dante’s, as Wetti is taken on a tour of the afterlife by an angel. The tone is harsh, as Walafrid focuses on the torment of immoral priests, almost to the exclusion of anyone else – although Charlemagne is also found suffering peculiarly unpleasant torments. Apart from the rigorous moral preaching of the work, it is most interesting as an early account of Purgatory: Charlemagne, although suffering, will ultimately find his reward, and we are told of one abbot currently purging his sins on a mountain before moving on to heaven.

After this work, Walafrid moved to Fulda, to study under Rabanus Maurus; but his poems from the time suggest that he did not get on well with Rabanus, an outspoken opponent of Gottschalk. He did, however, correspond favourably with Agobard of Lyon. By 829, Walafrid was at the court of Charlemagne’s son Louis the Pious at Aachen, where he became tutor to his son, the future Charles the Bald. In 833, however, following Louis’ defeat at Lügenfeld, Charles was imprisoned and Walafrid disappeared: he seems to have gone to the monastery at Weissenburg.

Louis was reinstated in 834, and Walafrid seems to have returned to his service, writing some more poems in a suitably flattering tone. In 838, when Charles came of age and no longer needed a tutor, Walafrid was rewarded for his work by being made abbot of Reichenau. There was evidently some political motive behind this, as the monastery was friendly to Louis the German, Louis the Pious’ son and sometime enemy, and the emperor doubtless wanted an ally as abbot there.

At Reichenau, Walafrid produced a number of writings, including the prose Liber de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum, an unusual work describing the origins of church practices, mingled with edifying moral and spiritual teachings. He also wrote his most well known work, De cultura hortorum, one of the first studies of herbs and their properties. The work consists of 27 short poems, based on Walafrid’s own experience of working in the monastery garden, and the different plants of the garden and their uses. Walafrid is also traditionally credited with compiling a gloss on the scriptures which in later centuries would become the Glossa ordinaria, most associated with Anselm of Laon.

However, Walafrid died young, drowned while crossing the Loire on a diplomatic mission from Louis the German to Charles. A sort of common-place book of Walafrid’s, containing autobiographical notes and extracts from authors such as Bede and Isidore of Seville, was discovered in 1950 but remains unpublished.

I have a question:

Why is it seen that someone cannot believe in both religion and science at the same time?

Really that's a myth that goes back to the nineteenth century, when some extremely anti-religious writers argued that the battles then raging over Darwinism were symptomatic of the relations between science and religion in general. Two of the most famous were John William Draper, who published History of the conflict between religion and science in 1875, and Andrew Dickson White, who published A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom in 1895. These authors (both American) and others argued that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, was a reactionary force which invariably did its best to stifle all free thought and scientific investigation, but which always eventually lost out. This argument involved a lot of very dubious claims. For example, White argued - against all the evidence - that the medieval church taught that the earth was flat; and that Columbus had had difficulty finding backers for his voyage because everyone thought that he would sail straight off the edge of the world. Of course this was completely false (everyone in the Middle Ages knew perfectly well that the world was round, and Columbus couldn't find backers because no-one believed the world was small enough to sail from Spain to China - and they were right), but the myth is still widespread even today. The more general claim that science and religion are enemies also remains widespread, partly because it's one of those myths that provides a lot of satisfaction to those who retell it in order to place themselves on the "right" side, and partly because of certain highly ignorant popular science writers who continue to perpetrate it and sell inexplicably large numbers of books.

And could Darwin be considered the founder of a religion (in a sense) considering that those who do not believe in an established traditional religion swear by, and follow his teachings ademently through what they read in books?

That would stretch the word "religion" out of all recognition. If you think that whenever anyone believes something on the authority of a book, then pretty much all education that doesn't involve conducting experiments for yourself would be a "religion". It's also a bit weird to talk about Darwin's "teachings". He was a scientist who set out observations and hypotheses, not some kind of guru who made stuff up out of his head.

Could Darwin be a "profit" of atheism?

No, because Darwinism has got nothing to do with theism or atheism.

The anti-Christ in the New Testament is an embodiment of evil and challenge to the church, although many scholars would suggest this figure refers to literal, historical characters (ie Nero).

Bear in mind that "anti-christ" in the New Testament is not the name or title of an individual, but an attitude. See 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7. It is later tradition, not any Biblical text, which calls the Beast of Revelation "anti-christ".

It's an issue of hypocrisy because many american evangelicals twist the Bible to suit their own personal opinions which are completely different from the principles of freedom, pacifism and equality Jesus preached.

That's not hypocrisy, that's just twisting a text to suit your own ends. Hypocrisy is when someone preaches one thing and does the opposite.
 
That's only a problem if you assume that all these books must be consistent with each other. An alternative approach might be to suppose that the bloodier books of the Old Testament were written earlier and represent a more primitive understanding of the divine on the part of the Hebrews, while the Pentateuch was written later and represents a rather more enlightened view (even, perhaps, a tacit criticism of the earlier books).

Except that the examples of which I was thinking were found in the Pentateuch, including the Book of Exodus. Other than those 5 books, the only place where the issue comes up are the historical books (Joshua and Judges, especially; also the several Samuels, Kings, and Chronicles.) But along with the Decalogue, we get accounts of the Israelites depopulating Canaan.
 
Ah, I didn't realise. Well, then I suppose the response might be that those instances come from one source and the Decalogue from another, and the redactor hasn't noticed the inconsistency. But you're right that to argue like that would at the very least be begging the question, unless one had some other good reason to suppose that these passages represent different sources.
 
But if it can mean both "kill" and "murder", why assume that it is kill? I don't think the Jews as a whole ever believed that killing was always wrong. Why accept the interpretation that would make the Law unworkable and is utterly inconsistent with the rest of the scriptures, Jewish and Christian, when there is a perfectly valid alternative? It just seems like someone is looking inconsistencies, like they're trying to find them instead of interpreting what was said in the likeliest manner, rather than the most inconsistent manner.
 
In the Greek world, Hades is lord of the underworld.

Yes, but don't forget he was a God. In ancient Greece, the sub-world was both paradise and hell, didn't had the separation as in Christianaty.

Wasn't the first separation of good and bad take pleace in Iran (Persia) with Zoroastro? :confused:
 
And could Darwin be considered the founder of a religion (in a sense) considering that those who do not believe in an established traditional religion swear by, and follow his teachings ademently through what they read in books? Could Darwin be a "profit" of atheism?

No, Ayn Rand is the profit of atheism [rimshot!]

On a more serious note, some people do make Darwinism into a religion, I'd have to say. Or remake their religions to fit a (Social) Darwinism into them.
 
Bear in mind that "anti-christ" in the New Testament is not the name or title of an individual, but an attitude. See 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7. It is later tradition, not any Biblical text, which calls the Beast of Revelation "anti-christ".

:blush: Oops. I just did exactly what I was criticising... drawing vague generalities :eek:. Spot on, thanks for the reminder.
 
Plotinus
and that Columbus had had difficulty finding backers for his voyage because everyone thought that he would sail straight off the edge of the world. Of course this was completely false (everyone in the Middle Ages knew perfectly well that the world was round, and Columbus couldn't find backers because no-one believed the world was small enough to sail from Spain to China - and they were right)

:lol:

It appears Columbus got fooled by a map. According to Piri Re'is (a Turkish admiral) Columbus had a copy of the map he had showing a land mass across the Atlantic much closer than Asia. I dont know if Columbus knew it wasn't Asia, certainly he should have known the approximate distances. Maybe he just used the map to convince others to back him.
 
That's not hypocrisy, that's just twisting a text to suit your own ends. Hypocrisy is when someone preaches one thing and does the opposite.

You missed my point. The point was, that they call themselves "christians"
 
You missed my point. The point was, that they call themselves "christians"

They may be misidentifying themselves, but I still don't see how that's hypocrisy. It's only hypocrisy if they knowingly behave in a way that is inconsistent with what they mean by "Christian".
 
That's an issue that goes all the way back. Basically, pretty much all Christians were staunch pacifists until the fourth century, when Christianity became "official", at which point it suddenly seemed like violence on behalf of the church might not be quite so bad after all. The notion of "just war" was worked out by Augustine and, later, the medieval theologians, and put into practice in the Crusades. The question whether Jesus himself was a pacifist is very hard to answer, because there are conflicting texts; I suspect it just wasn't the sort of thing he was interested in.

zxcvbnm also mentioned "freedom" and "equality"; I'm not sure what these have to do with Jesus' message either. Obviously inequality is taught in the New Testament, such as in those passages that tell slaves to obey their masters; I don't think Jesus had much to say about that. And "freedom" is too vague a word to start with.
 
That's an issue that goes all the way back. Basically, pretty much all Christians were staunch pacifists until the fourth century, when Christianity became "official", at which point it suddenly seemed like violence on behalf of the church might not be quite so bad after all. The notion of "just war" was worked out by Augustine and, later, the medieval theologians, and put into practice in the Crusades. The question whether Jesus himself was a pacifist is very hard to answer, because there are conflicting texts; I suspect it just wasn't the sort of thing he was interested in.

See, pacifism is the original one, others are reinterpretations.

zxcvbnm also mentioned "freedom" and "equality"; I'm not sure what these have to do with Jesus' message either. Obviously inequality is taught in the New Testament, such as in those passages that tell slaves to obey their masters; I don't think Jesus had much to say about that. And "freedom" is too vague a word to start with.

He told the masters to treat their slaves well, etc. Those were great steps towards equality in that time, as he recognised everyone's human value.
 
See, pacifism is the original one, others are reinterpretations.

The question whether Jesus himself was a pacifist is very hard to answer, because there are conflicting texts; I suspect it just wasn't the sort of thing he was interested in.

Well, the fact that the earliest Christians were all agreed on a doctrine isn't necessarily as important as what Jesus thought; especially given their political situation.
 
See, pacifism is the original one, others are reinterpretations.

It's not necessarily what Jesus taught though. As far as we know Jesus never said a word about abortion, but the early Christians were unanimously against that too.

He told the masters to treat their slaves well, etc. Those were great steps towards equality in that time, as he recognised everyone's human value.

That's not Jesus, that's Paul. And telling masters to treat their slaves well isn't remotely like saying that they are equal, it's simply acknowledging that they deserve to be treated well. It's perfectly consistent to believe that whilst not believing that they are equal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom