Theological Opinions

[Nurvingiel]

Inked's post in Why you believe what you believe prompted me to start a thread about Theology, about which I know very little.

For starters, let's talk about Christian Theology, namely Anglican. We can talk about the theology of any religion in this thread too!

Naturally, all Mooters are welcome in this thread.

Inked's post:

Originally Posted by inked

Nurvingiel,

What! No classes? Make haste to mend that deficiency. I'd suggest MERE CHRISTIANITY by CS Lewis for starters. If you have a copy of the Prayer Book for your region, check out a section called Catechism.

Christians do mean specific things by their terminology. Quite specific and daunting things too. Dorothy L. Sayers, noted authoress of detective fiction and translator of Dante and lay theologian, has a short book that your Univeristy library should have on hand known as CREED OR CHAOS. I recommend it to your perusal as well.

The remark about Satan and the fallen angels suggests a less than complete grasp or teaching about the nature of evil and exactly what and whom Jesus did save us from. Yes, Satan (aka the Devil, aka Lucifer, aka Angel of Light) was a created being, originally good, with free will, who set himself against his Creator and led many angelic beings in rebellion against God. His opposite is Michael the Archangel, not God. Check out my postings (and others' as ell in Evil in Middle Earth). Subsequently, Satan led mankind into the self-same VOLUNTARY rebellion from which God has made a deliverance available.

Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary the Virgin, was the taking of human nature by the God of All, truly human and truly divine, truly crucified, truly dead and buried, truly resurrected, and truly ascended, who shall return in glory to judge both the living and the dead. This what is meant by Christians using the term Son of God (cf. Apostle's, Nicene, Athanasian, and Creed of Chalcedon, as well as the Thirty-Nine articles. See your Prayerbook.)

The Holy Spirit is God at work in the lives of men and women now and throughout all time.

Thus we have the active personal God who created all that is and continues creating now, revealed in a specific historical person, accomplishing His goals in the world today: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Trinity).

So, when you say you are an Anglican Christian, this is what you say. Now, is that what you mean?

Edit: See also the Silmarillion forum and thread Iluvatar Good and Evil .

Theology thread book list:
If you're looking for something to read, why not try the exciting books proposed in this thread. (Updates as needed)

- "The Mind of the Maker" by Dorothy L. Sayers
- "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis
- "The Book of Wisdom" and "The Little Book of Wisdom" by Tenzing Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
- "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hanh
- "The Chosen" by Chiam Potok
- "The Poisonwood Bible" by Barbara Kingsolver

[Rían]

What, Nurvi, aren't we keeping you busy enough over on the other thread?

[Draken]

Durham Uni has quite a renowned Theology Department. Have had a few nice chats with some of the students. Easy to tell who they are, by and large they're the most avowedly atheist ones!

[Nurvingiel]

Lol RÃ*an and Draken!

My theological questions/comments on inked's post:

Comments:
- I really want to read "Mere Christianity"!
- My library will have "Creed and Chaos", if it's about forestry or agriculture and is in Swedish.

Questions:
- Isn't the Catchetism Catholic?
- I take it from your comment that it's more complex than Jesus dying for our sins. Or is it?
- If Adam and Eve fell from grace, this leaves two options that I can conceive: 1. They already possessed the possibility of commiting sin (choosing to go against God and eat the apple) 2. Satan introduced this to them. Are there others? (I'm feeling a yes on that one.)

EDIT: Cross-post with Valandil.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lol RÃ*an and Draken!

My theological questions/comments on inked's post:

Comments:
- I really want to read "Mere Christianity"!
- My library will have "Creed and Chaos", if it's about forestry or agriculture and is in Swedish.

Questions:
- Isn't the Catchetism Catholic?
- I take it from your comment that it's more complex than Jesus dying for our sins. Or is it?
- If Adam and Eve fell from grace, this leaves two options that I can conceive: 1. They already possessed the possibility of commiting sin (choosing to go against God and eat the apple) 2. Satan introduced this to them. Are there others? (I'm feeling a yes on that one.)

EDIT: Cross-post with Valandil.

Nurvingiel,

Well, DL Sayers was quite popular (The Lord Peter Wimsey novels) and there may well be a copy of Creed or Chaos in the uni library. The breadth of library holdings probably includes an interU book lending service if it isn't available there at present. Clemson University, a land grant agricultural college had it, so there's no reason a Forestry Univ wouldn't (except the language thing, I do not know if it was translated into Swedish ).

Nurv, I don not wish to sound condescending, but an Anglican is a Catholic (not a Roman Catholic nor a Greek Orthodox Catholic) but an English Catholic.
The Church in England sent 2 bishops to the Council of Niceae in 325 AD and we know this because they were so poor financially that there are records of their request for money to travel home! Also the Celtic branch of Christianity was present before the arrival of Augustine from the Roman Church. Catholic in this sense means Universal = Universal Church. Catechism means an ordered teaching. Recall that in most of history most people in most places have been illiterate, so the teaching model was cast into a Socratic mode of questions and answers. The older members of the Church had the responsibility of catechising the younger members and converts into the correct teaching of the Church. Early theological education in the time honored style from Jerusalem to Alexandria to Antioch to Rome to the far edges of the Roman Empire (the British Isles)!

There are three primary modes of understanding the Sacrifice of Jesus in the history of the Church Universal. Fascinatingly, the best summary discussion of them that I am acquainted with was written by a Swede, Gustav Aulen, and is titled CHRISTUS VICTOR. You could check the library again and perhaps find it in Swedish or the English translation. I won't go into it lest I bore you to tears too soon. (I must however warn you that I find the subject eternally interesting and am quite capable of inducing boredom by discussion ! Therefore, be warned!) So, human understanding of a suprahuman act is bound to lead to varying explanations or models over time in attempts to comprehend. Interestingly, no Church Universal pronouncement or required doctrine beyond Jesus died for our sins has ever been promulgated. (At least that much humility in the face of our ignorances has been retained.) So the answer is that it is that simple!

Adam and Eve were created good and without sin. Because of their free will they retained the option to obey or disobey. Because of the nature of humanity (amphibians living in a spiritual and physical reality) the possibility of sin was open BUT NOT EXISTENT in humanity until DISOBEDIENCE to GOD caused sin to be made actual. That option was used by the Deceiver (aka Satan et alia) to tempt both humans into his realm of diobedience and its consequences. They both chose to disobey God and sin was actualized. The apple is a traditional image, but the disobedience was to God because rejecting their roles as created they, like Satan, sought to usurp the place of God. This first sin is Pride, the root and ground of all other sins.

The Church teaches that there are seven categories of sin (not, it may amaze you to know, only sex-related!), but that would be another lengthy post and this one is quite long enough. (DLS has an essay on the subject you find highly etertaining and enLightening ).

THEOLOGY by the way is the organized study of humanity's thoughts about God and is not to be confused with HIM in His Essence and Ineffability (as though amoeba understood quantum physics - or that I did ).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Adam and Eve were created good and without sin. Because of their free will they retained the option to obey or disobey. Because of the nature of humanity (amphibians living in a spiritual and physical reality) the possibility of sin was open BUT NOT EXISTENT in humanity until DISOBEDIENCE to GOD caused sin to be made actual. That option was used by the Deceiver (aka Satan et alia) to tempt both humans into his realm of diobedience and its consequences. They both chose to disobey God and sin was actualized. The apple is a traditional image, but the disobedience was to God because rejecting their roles as created they, like Satan, sought to usurp the place of God. This first sin is Pride, the root and ground of all other sins.

well put explanation... the adam and eve story has always interested me... i'll bug you instead of rÃ*an with a few points i've always had questions about

i always think of god and adam and eve as the classic father/child relationship... and with adam and eve being innocents as you say, with no concept of evil or consequences, or even disobedience for that matter (much like my littlest one ) how could god expect them to make an informed decision on a matter of such importance? why would they have any reason to distrust the serpent when all they knew was trust? would they not assume that the serpent, another one of god's creations was just as innocent and trustworthy as themselves?

[Valandil]

I strongly agree with inked. Evil is not a thing unto itself - some cosmic opposite of good. It is what was once good, but which has been corrupted or twisted... sometimes grossly, sometimes, just slightly. It is the inherent goodness remaining in what has been corrupted which has the potential to draw us to that which is evil.

Satan didn't 'create' evil... he was just the first (as far as we know) to take the good which God gave to him and decide to twist it, re-shape it, pervert it. God created him to be good - and with a free will. He chose to disobey God, to follow his own plan, to sing his own song, to do it... his way.

References are scant, and not conclusive (yet still widely accepted), but some believe that a number of other angels joined Satan in his rebellion against God - perhaps 1/3 of them.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I strongly agree with inked. Evil is not a thing unto itself - some cosmic opposite of good. It is what was once good, but which has been corrupted or twisted... sometimes grossly, sometimes, just slightly. It is the inherent goodness remaining in what has been corrupted which has the potential to draw us to that which is evil.

Satan didn't 'create' evil... he was just the first (as far as we know) to take the good which God gave to him and decide to twist it, re-shape it, pervert it. God created him to be good - and with a free will. He chose to disobey God, to follow his own plan, to sing his own song, to do it... his way.

This suggests to me that it's possible to have good without evil. Thought to ponder.

References are scant, and not conclusive (yet still widely accepted), but some believe that a number of other angels joined Satan in his rebellion against God - perhaps 1/3 of them.

Did they become demons? Remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question!

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This suggests to me that it's possible to have good without evil. Thought to ponder.

Did they become demons? Remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question!

On the first, certainly... yes!

On the second - yes, those are the ones we call 'demons' - but you can dispell the images of horned creatures with split hoofs for their feet, bat's wings and red skins... that's Medieval imagery coming through. (after 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis, you ought to try 'Screwtape Letters'... interesting analysis! )

[Nurvingiel]

This just in from the "Why you believe..." thread!

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I think that Satan is a symbol for all things evil eg. hate, fear, spite, temptation. Take the story of Jesus in the desert. There Satan was represented by temptation. He is the part inside of us that makes us feel hatred and fear and despair. Most people overcome it but the tiniest percentage of people hearken to this part of them and it dominates them.

How could Satan tempt Jesus? I know Jesus rejected him, but did Satan really think it would work? And how did Satan know Jesus was going to die for everyone's sins? Even if this was the plan all along, how would Satan find out? Or was he referring to an ordinary human death? (He would have been wrong in the last case, right?)

Originally Posted by Valandil

On the first, certainly... yes!

I meant would be possible to have the entire universe good, with no evil at all. Is that what you said yes to? Just wanting to be clear about my original statement. Wouldn't want to have ambiguous theology!

On the second - yes, those are the ones we call 'demons' - but you can dispell the images of horned creatures with split hoofs for their feet, bat's wings and red skins... that's Medieval imagery coming through. (after 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis, you ought to try 'Screwtape Letters'... interesting analysis! )

Remind me when I get back to Canada! My parents have at least one of his theology books. Maybe I'll borrow theirs.
I agree with your assessment of mideval imagery, I don't hold with that either.
Thanks Val!
Now we just have to get inked in here...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Ta Nurv, they are both excellent reads, and the first appendix to the Book of Wisdom is the acceptance speech made by the Dalai Lama, for receiving the nobel peace prize.

Dalai Lama the title itself is derived from a few words,
the man who came to be the 3rd dalai lama visited a mongol chieftain (the nephew of genghis khan no less) and, on speaking with the tibetan monk, the mongol converted to buddhism almost instantly. the mongol gave him the name Ta Le, which signifies 'Ocean', speaking of his great depth. This term, in Tibetan, is Dalai, and Lama means 'Wisdom', so the title of Dalai Lama signifies 'Ocean of Wisdom'.

(As you can probably tell, I am a Lamaist Buddhist)

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting. As a side note, I read a really good book about Genghis Khan a long time ago, I think his nephew was 'the end of the line' so to speak. Or was that his grandson.

I always figured there was more than one 'type' of Buddhist. What are the other kinds? (Sects... denominations... things... )

What differentiates Lamaists from other Buddhists? Tell me more about the theology, because I don't want to usurp the role of the "Why you believe..." thread.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

There isn't much differentiation between 'denominations' (for want of a more suitable word), Zen is more widely practised in Japan and Korea than in the Indian Subcontinent, and Lamaist is traditionally more widely practised in Tibet, but there are other forms, the base of buddhism, for instance, originated in Nepal and Northern India, with the Buddha himself, Siddartha Gautama (There are many variant spellings of His name), and this has been taken more in s e asia, myanmar, thailand etc. Lamaist Buddhism was first developed in tibet, and zen developed in china and korea, when the area was overrun by mongol hordes, although it has taken a more peaceful tone since the demise of the khanates, in about the 12th century.

[Ñólendil]

Last Child, isn't there is a slight difference, though, between Mahayana Buddhism and Hinayana Buddhism?

I realize even those have their own regions, but my understanding was that there is a difference in belief, particularly in the matter of bodhiccita (sp?).

In his Introduction to Live in a Better Way, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche said that Mahayana Buddhism states that we must desire to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, not only for oneself. And I believe I have read elsewhere that Hinayana was focused more on performing austerities.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Last Child, isn't there is a slight difference, though, between Mahayana Buddhism and Hinayana Buddhism?

I realize even those have their own regions, but my understanding was that there is a difference in belief, particularly in the matter of bodhiccita (sp?).

In his Introduction to Live in a Better Way, Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche said that Mahayana Buddhism states that we must desire to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, not only for oneself. And I believe I have read elsewhere that Hinayana was focused more on performing austerities.

Yes, there are slight differences, but with all varying forms, as is the case in most religion.

Boddhisattha?

[Serenoli]

Funny... and confusing, inked.

And about the debate about God's goodness, well, I believe he's good, which means I have no arguments for it or against it, but believe it nevertheless.

I've never talked to anyone about my religious beliefs, so I'm feeling a bit shy. But, my view on it all, is that no religion is perfect. All have been distorted, changed, and misinterpreted by humans. I used to think Islam perfect, and in some aspects it still is. But when I found out it allows slavery, and when I realized how much it discriminated against women, that's when I lost some faith.

And there's something else. The world was created so long ago, and humans for a very long time. Why should God only reveal his purposes and his religion to humans only in the last two millenia? And why were so many of these religions, the ones which believe in one God, at any rate, all in the same place? Were not other people, in other parts of the world, just as important, was it not just as important for them to know, if belief in religion is so necessary to be good?

And so I follow a very simple faith now. I believe in the main aspects that unite Judaism, Christianity and Islam... the existence of an all-powerful, good God, Paradise and Hell, and that the best guide I can rely on is to do good, and follow my conscience.

And by the way, Lief, it makes no sense whatsoever to me, that Jesus could be God. Experience, historical, statistical evidence doesn't really say anything of the kind. When I think of all God has created, from the magnificient stars to the smallest of cells, then I think He must be wonderful beyond imagination. For Him to come down on Earth as a human, a mere small fraction, of all He has created, and then, just die! He could do it, no doubt if he wanted to, and I am not one to read His mind, but I can not swallow it.

[Lief Erikson]

Good to hear from you on one of these threads, Serenoli! I think this is probably a first time, and it's a great pleasure to hear from you.

I hope you won't find my response at all overwhelming, but I get very excited about this subject .

Originally Posted by Serenoli

The world was created so long ago, and humans for a very long time. Why should God only reveal his purposes and his religion to humans only in the last two millenia?

I have three points to make in response to this.

1# When we sinned, turning away from God, we really made a very complete fall. There was such wickedness and perversion in those ancient lands that even if you didn't think in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim way, you'd be shocked by what you saw. The cruelty and callous uncaring about human life, as well as many other wrongs were just massive. In short, if God had revealed all of his will to us immediately, we could not have handled it. He still has many things he has not revealed to us, things we just couldn't handle if he had told us. If he had laid all that we know now into Abraham or God's other followers, they would probably not have accepted it. It would have been too much, too foreign.

In the scripture it says that Jesus came, "just at the right time." I don't have the same perspective God does, so I can't argue for or against that statement.

2# Another thing is that God has not revealed his will to us only in the last two millenia. He spoke with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He has spoken with men as long as men have existed. He has been progressively revealing more and more of his will to mankind, ever since he created us.

3# According to scripture, where people sin ignorantly, not understanding their wickedness, God shows a great deal more mercy than he does with those who sin with the full knowledge of what they've done wrong.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

All have been distorted, changed, and misinterpreted by humans.

As for "distorted" and "changed," based on the documentary evidence of the Bible, I'd have to disagree with you. We have manuscripts of the New Testament that date back the third century AD. We have more from the fourth or fifth century. That we have texts that are this close to the actual time of writing is really a wonderous thing. We accept many other documents as essentially accurate to their original, even when the most recent documents are hundreds of years further from the original than they are for the New Testament, and there are far fewer copies. The New Testament is the most reliable ancient text. We have hundreds of early texts to compare, and from that comparison we can see very, very little discrepancy, but no discrepancy large enough to alter anything big and no discrepancy in major doctrine. There is a great deal of evidence that the New Testament has not significantly changed.

The Old Testament, of course, is rather too old for us to be sure of with the same clarity. However, we do know the care that the Jews took to keep the ancient manuscripts clean of error, and it was extreme, I tell you. If a small error, a small nudge of the pen was different in a new manuscript than it was in an old one, they'd destroy the new one. They'd ruin countless hours' work for one itsy bitsy mistake. They also destroyed the old manuscripts, because they felt that as the old manuscripts age, they would be more difficult to decipher. They believed that what they were writing was the word of God, and they took enormous care over how they copied, as a consequence.

But about it being possible to misinterpret true words from God, I agree. That's one reason that Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit, so that he would be our Counselor and so that he would not make mistakes.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

And why were so many of these religions, the ones which believe in one God, at any rate, all in the same place? Were not other people, in other parts of the world, just as important, was it not just as important for them to know, if belief in religion is so necessary to be good?

If you look in the Book of Jonah, you'll see how much God cared for and loved even the most wicked of nations. He sent Jonah to them to speak to them God's truth, and they listened. He did this out of divine compassion and love. He created Israel with the intent that it be, "a light for the nations." This shows his love for the nations also. That he goes and pays close attention to other people as well as his chosen people Israel is a wonderful truth. If people have never have not sinned knowingly, God will judge them leniently for their crimes. If they sin knowingly, he will judge them sharply.

There is also a scripture that talks about Jesus having gone and preached after death to those who had perished from the time of Noah (Goes bug-eyed). That's just amazingly cool . Some of these people had already heard Noah's message, for Noah, according to scripture, was a preacher of righteousness. They'd heard Noah and rejected his words.

God cared so much that he preached after death, giving another chance even to these evildoers whose "every thought had turned to wickedness", and whose vile crimes had risen so high to heaven that he had been forced to wipe humanity off the Earth!!! It's just astoundingly cool how gracious and giving God is, how much he reaches out to everyone, seeking and hungering from the depths of his heart that all mankind should be saved. Not that they are all saved, unfortunately . He won't destroy our freedom to reject him, which is also good, because by not destroying our freedom, he shows how highly he respects his creatures.

It's just amazing how much God reaches to everyone, though, and it's wonderful how he is gentle with those who have never heard, or who have had less opportunity to know and understand God. That is Biblical too.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

I believe in the main aspects that unite Judaism, Christianity and Islam... the existence of an all-powerful, good God, Paradise and Hell, and that the best guide I can rely on is to do good, and follow my conscience.

I'm afraid that the last part of you said, "the best guide I can rely on is to do good, and follow my conscience," is not the main teaching of any of these three religions. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all share holy scriptures that are supposed to be God's flawless word to man. Paul said, "even though my conscience justifies me, that does not mean I do right." He said something along those lines. The Nazis also believed that they were doing right . The Muslim terrorists are plainly dead certain that they are doing right. It's tough to know what's right and what's wrong, and people's morality changes over time as their society does. Right and wrong don't change with people's swaying morality.

The point I'm making is that we need a plumbline. We need some kind of a standard, or we have nothing. For me, the standard is the Bible, a word through which God spoke to me and revealed himself. The Holy Spirit is a counselor we have also been given, and he will speak to us also and grant us understanding of what is written and of what his will is, so that our own feelings do not lead us astray.

Originally Posted by Serenoli

When I think of all God has created, from the magnificient stars to the smallest of cells, then I think He must be wonderful beyond imagination. For Him to come down on Earth as a human, a mere small fraction, of all He has created, and then, just die! He could do it, no doubt if he wanted to, and I am not one to read His mind, but I can not swallow it.

This is a very, very, very good point. I love pondering the majesty of God seen through nature!! My favorite thing to ponder right now is the colors. I love just thanking God for color, for how beautiful and wonderful it is! Tastebuds too, of course, one can go on and on. Color is the one I think most of right now, though.

If you have a good understanding of how awestriking and unbelievable it is for God to humble himself so much as to become like us and die for us, this is a very good thing. That God would do this for us, would humble himself so low from such high majesty, that he would do this because his nature is love and he is a force of love that is infinite, it just boggles one's mind. He is so far above us that we are like a spot of dirt on the floor. The universe's astounding scale, how great it is in comparison with us magnifies the point that we are officially small. That God in spite of how unbelievably greater he is than us should come and humble himself so low, and die for us, is just incredible.

The way it can start to make sense is if you realize that the good qualities of God's love and humility are as great as his glorious power as creator. I just love it . To think that he is as loving as he is powerful . . . it blows your mind.

[Lief Erikson]

Bump!