Originally posted by Digi
Explain*He could exclaim it as well, but to do so might be a small breach of internet etiquette.
And he's talking about how the Catholic Church split into two major factions. Martin Luther, notice pinned to a church door, ring any bells? It's probably the most historically significant split in church history, and directly involved a splitting of Catholics into Protestants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
Yes, obviously I just made this up, right?
Originally posted by inimalist
modestly off topic: found out today that one of my most intelligent friends actually had never heard of the reformation...
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Ok I am goingt to the beach till Sunday so i will read your posts when I get back. But I still don't think anyone knows what they are talking about.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm always finding surprising things that people still believe.
Or don't believe, I guess.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's just one more way the catholic viewpoint is flawed. I would totally agree with you, I personally consider all of the sects i've mentioned, vastly superior to catholic/most protestant beliefs.
Yes, indeed.
I am down with the Orthodox Christians of the East - mostly because they don't have issues with abortion, historically had no issues with Jews and for the most part managed to chill with the Muslims.
They also aren't into Jesus like Catholics, Baptists and few other American Christian sects are.
I haven't figured that out yet, though...while Jesus is important (i'm guessing) he's nowhere near as invoked as he is Catholicism, Baptism and few other Christian sects. They're all about God...it's like reverse from the Western Christianity. Jesus is seen more like an example of how one should live or something...but not quite the same as God. (from my understanding. Again, I could be wrong, so anyone may correct me)
I'm going to go ahead and assume that's a result of living around Jews and Muslims for 2 millennia and they tend not to worship their prophets... I'm just guessing here, I've got nothing to support my claim...
The Arians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
This was an even earlier schism in the Catholic church. The Bishop Arius taught that Jesus was not God, but was literally God's son and is a separate being, with powers inferior to Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is a force rather than a being. You can say in some senses they resemble modern Jehovah's witnesses. Popular in the 4-7th century, this sect was popular among the Germanic tribes, while the Catholic church was more prevalent among the old Roman Empire. Some early protestant church's adopted his philosophy as well.
An amusing anti-Manichean polemic by St. Augustine, where they cover such important theological issues as "should you eat rancid bacon", and what I believe is one of history's first blowjob jokes.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm
If you want a more serious, even handed discussion, this debate between Augustine and bishop Faustus of the manicheans may be interesting; one thing to note is that not only is Faustus's belief very different than modern Christianity, but Augustine's is as well. This is quite a lengthy read though, I warn. You may prefer to just read a few chapters; they are basically all independent of each other.
I agree on the ad hominem thing which is especially interesting because Augustine used to be good friends with Faustus back when he was a manichean. As far as the self evidence, a lot of it is because of the frame of the debate; both of them believe in the new testament so they can kind of take that aspect as "given" (though Faustus argues that some passages are fake).
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I still don't quite understand Augustine's logic for claiming God has no responsibility for evil's genesis.How could it be otherwise if God is the origin of all reality and possibilities?
Edit: Also lol...its like reading an ancient BattleZone. 😂
I thought about that, too.
It could be that God created the everything, even us, and the evil is our own creation. Why?
Well, God created us...and he gave us a weeeee bit of His qualities which includes creativity/a form of free will (I don't know if I believe in LFW, but I do believe we exercise some free will). So we are the creators of evil. This can even extend to fallen angels if you want to invoke Lucifer as an actual being and not an abstract representation of the evil of man or a state of mind.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought about that, too.It could be that God created the everything, even us, and the evil is our own creation. Why?
Well, God created us...and he gave us a weeeee bit of His qualities which includes creativity/a form of free will (I don't know if I believe in LFW, but I do believe we exercise some free will). So we are the creators of evil. This can even extend to fallen angels if you want to invoke Lucifer as an actual being and not an abstract representation of the evil of man or a state of mind.
I think Jean-Paul Sartre discussed the Origin of Sin and how it would tie into his view of free will. From what I recall he says that the essence of Adam (in this case a byword for sin, imperfection) is indeed part of Adam but not chosen by Adam for if we are to presume the existence of an all powerful, all knowing creator God then the essence of Adam and Adam's existence is not chosen by Adam but rather by God.
God in this case is responsible for creating the situation/reality wherein Adam exists and sins and in that view (which is the one I hold) free will also carries the burden of responsibility for one's actions and existence. I think the notion of a divine plan somehow allowing true free will is a little screwy personally.
Another thing I don't understand is how in many Christians' view sin and thus evil were created in the Garden of Eden because of human free will but at the same time some angels who supposedly don't have free will also managed to fall and oppose God.
How does that come about? Am I totally misrepresenting the mainstream Christian view?
I have always felt that the Garden of Eden story gave an absurd message. God forbids Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge; what kind of idea is this? It seems inconceivable a loving creator would desire ignorance above all else in their creation. Surely, knowledge should be a gift for man, not a curse? Well, the Gnostics agree with me; in the secret gospel of John, a completely inverted version of the story is given. The demiurge Yaldabaoth (Jehovah) creates man, and when man is gifted with a soul, Yaldabaoth is jealous when he realizes Adam is actually superior to him. So he clouds Adam's mind with ignorance and forbids him from eating the fruit of knowledge, to keep him from realizing the truth (that his soul is eternal, and Yaldabaoth's creation is a sham). Finally, Jesus Christ himself appears to Adam and gives him the fruit (not a serpent). IDK but this seems like a more sensible version for me because knowledge is desired, not condemned, and the real God is he who brings knowledge.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I have always felt that the Garden of Eden story gave an absurd message. God forbids Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge; what kind of idea is this? It seems inconceivable a loving creator would desire ignorance above all else in their creation. Surely, knowledge should be a gift for man, not a curse? Well, the Gnostics agree with me; in the secret gospel of John, a completely inverted version of the story is given. The demiurge Yaldabaoth (Jehovah) creates man, and when man is gifted with a soul, Yaldabaoth is jealous when he realizes Adam is actually superior to him. So he clouds Adam's mind with ignorance and forbids him from eating the fruit of knowledge, to keep him from realizing the truth (that his soul is eternal, and Yaldabaoth's creation is a sham). Finally, Jesus Christ himself appears to Adam and gives him the fruit (not a serpent). IDK but this seems like a more sensible version for me because knowledge is desired, not condemned, and the real God is he who brings knowledge.
I think trying to reconcile Old and New Testament gets really hairy because you can see that they're two very different Gods.
Old Testament God would never send his only son to die for our sins, Old Testament God would realize he'd screwed up again and would make another flood.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The problem with free will is that if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient then it is at best a conceptual asset for mankind.
I believe that for lesser minds, he has those qualities. But to philosophers, he does not truly have those qualities. He has partial Omniscience and omnipotence. (But that's like dividing infinity by 2: it's still infinity.)
For instance, someone had an NDE (near death experience) and evil was explained to them by an "angel": God knows all potential paths we can take but he does not know which one you will take. That means he is aware of an almost infinite number of outcomes (because humans...well, all of life creates a very complex web that even changing one item can have "vibrations" very far down the line) but he cannot be sure on the specifics for every individual due to our free will.
Most Christians I talk to about my "idea" do not like it. But I don't like their idea that God creates a spirit that he knows is going to be evil and never come back to Him and hate Him. Why? What a waste of a creation especially if you think he wants all of us to come back.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Jean-Paul Sartre discussed the Origin of Sin and how it would tie into his view of free will. From what I recall he says that the essence of Adam (in this case a byword for sin, imperfection) is indeed part of Adam but not chosen by Adam for if we are to presume the existence of an all powerful, all knowing creator God then the essence of Adam and Adam's existence is not chosen by Adam but rather by God.God in this case is responsible for creating the situation/reality wherein Adam exists and sins and in that view (which is the one I hold) free will also carries the burden of responsibility for one's actions and existence. I think the notion of a divine plan somehow allowing true free will is a little screwy personally.
Some Christians (Mormons) think that God designed for Adam to "fall" from the beginning. And that was the plan the whole time. But that's hard for some to accept because that means God planned sin very directly making him an aspect of Evil.
Still, apologists to that perspective say that God actually furthered righteousness by his plan of evil because it allows His spirit children to grow and progress in a way that they cannot in His presence. So, technically, by that perspective, evil is actually a tool of righteousness.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Another thing I don't understand is how in many Christians' view sin and thus evil were created in the Garden of Eden because of human free will but at the same time some angels who supposedly don't have free will also managed to fall and oppose God.How does that come about? Am I totally misrepresenting the mainstream Christian view?
That's simple: Angels also have free will.
As it goes, Lucifer and a third of the host of heaven disagreed with God about something and "fell".
Mormons explain that in their theology as Lucifer wanting to be the Christ but instead of giving glory to God, Lucifer wanted the glory to be his and for him to be the worshiped God. God selected Jesus/Jehovah as the one that would atone for obvious reasons.
Apparently, Lucifer's plan was one of pure determinism but the determined outcome was one of perfect retainement of souls. No one would have a choice and all would be forced to be righteous so that all souls would be saved and return o God's presence. That completely defeated God's plan of "growth and development" as eternal beings/children so God was like, "Well....that's not going to work out, son. You kind of missed the point of everything."
And thus began Lucifer's fall from grace. Apparently, Lucifer held quite the highest position in heaven because he was able to convince a third of all the souls/angels to agree with him. I don't understand how that is even possible since God's plan was supposed to be simple, but I guess it's due to those billions of souls being fearful not being able to "make it" and failing.
That could be a horribly simplified version of what actually went down but that's the best account that the Mormons have, at this point.
We don't know how much is allegorical and how much is "for reals".