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!

[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]

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]

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...

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now we just have to get inked in here...

I suspect he'll be along.

And yes... I believe it IS possible to have good without evil in the entire universe. I believe that was the original state, and that ultimately, that will be its final state.

[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?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

The family analogy is quite useful but Adam and Eve were not created children. They were adults and rational. Adam's role was to name the creatures, you recall. Eve was his helpmate. They were innocent in that they knew no sin. They had the one rule to which they could give either obedience or disobedience in respect to God's command.

CS Lewis brilliantly illuminated this whole conceptualization in the second book of his space trilogy. If you care to examine this mythic telling it goes by the title PERELANDRA.

Adam and Eve had one piece of information. They were told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil FOR in the day they did so they would die. It was not necessary that they have a total comprehension of the possible consequences to make a choice of obedience. This obedience was a matter of the will, that faculty within mankind that is so godlike. There was no constraint on them or absence of any good thing, pleasure, or delight. It was simple: obey or not.

As the story unfolds, it was the temptation to be as God that undid them both. The issue of trust was not that they trusted the Serpent too much, but that they trusted God too little. The Deceiver said "Did he really say...?" and led them down the broad path of self-will into disobedience. They went by will - choosing to disobey rather than obey one simple restriction.

As to their opinion of the Serpent's innocence, being rational and being tempted to disobey, one thinks they could have recognized a difference between themselves and the Serpent. But, even could they not, it still would not justify their disobedience. They were not required to comprehend the nature of good and evil, merely to not eat the fruit of a certain tree because of marked adverse consequences. Again, a matter of will not reason.

The harsh reality that this story shines light upon is near and dear to each one of us. In our hearts we know obedience to God is best, yet when we want a thing forbidden us, we will destroy our lives in its attainment. We place ourselves first, damning the consequences to others or ourselves, if we can have but what we WILL. Who among us does not repeatedly have this choice in many areas. The flimsiest of excuses or blames will justify to the will bent on self-serving that the object of our desire is to be taken by us NOW.

That inward turning to self-will, that bentness away from the Good, is sin in theological terms. Every choice of self will over God is sin. Any failing of the bullseye, no matter how few microns off, is sin. It now so permeates our nature that none are free of it and though we may rationally know the right, we are powerless to do it in ourselves.

Which brings us to God's remedy! Jesus, the second Adam as St Paul notes, though tempted in all points like as we are, was without sin. Being truly human, he chose obedience to God, and through Jesus, the creation is made again. But that is another post. This one's too long.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

interesting thoughts here
i will post something later on when i have had a chance to discuss all of this with myself. i will have something to say really soon

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

CS Lewis brilliantly illuminated this whole conceptualization in the second book of his space trilogy. If you care to examine this mythic telling it goes by the title PERELANDRA.

excellent series! i've read it a few times actually

Adam and Eve had one piece of information. They were told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil FOR in the day they did so they would die. It was not necessary that they have a total comprehension of the possible consequences to make a choice of obedience. This obedience was a matter of the will, that faculty within mankind that is so godlike. There was no constraint on them or absence of any good thing, pleasure, or delight. It was simple: obey or not.

interesting thought, though i still think it is difficult to hold them to there decision since "death", just as much as "evil" had no meaning to them... they had never seen it before... but it is a matter of interpretation, so i will not press it

disobediance also leads to personal growth... it is one thing to be taught right and wrong... but quite another to find out for ones self through the experience of making ones own decisions, both good and bad

how do you feel god would have felt if they had never eaten from the tree? do you think that was what god was hoping for, or was it part of his plan that they ultimately did not listen to his advice?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

You and I have no concept of what it is to be unconstrained by the prior actions of others culminating in what we refer to as society/culture/zeitgeist/nurture. Our free will is free within the parameters with which we arrive and live on this orb.

Think how it was for Adam and Eve to be absolutely without those constraints and to be Lords of the creation. Your statement that they had no concept of death is, IMHO, in error. We have no information to the effect that creation was of permanent existence for all living creatures and the physical laws of the Universe were presumably the same so that water drowned and falls killed. In fact, we must assume that they had such knowledge, else the Serpent could not have argued that "thou shalt not surely die?" so effectively. The Deceiver was at it again for the clear contrast here is that physical death was the only consequence of disobedience. The Deceiver would have them view the only consequence as physical ones and he could not deny what was obviously a shared datum - physical termination of life. By framing the question in this manner, the Deceiver shifted the focus, o so subtly, from the consequences of disobedience on the level of communion with the Creator to one limited by experential reality. And what a successful ploy it was. Now distracted from the spiritual by the physical, Eve harkens to his argument with blinkers on!

And you iterate perfectly the line of argument, "How will you experentially experience this, if you do not try it, Eve?" This is the root call to disobedience to place self above God. It is still working quite obviously and quite well. Analogously, think of the signs around an electrical substation showing the lightning bolt of electricity and the prostrate humanoid form. "How will YOU know unless you touch the forbidden?" whispers the Deceiver. Alas, to know is to experience the consequence - in this case sever physical injury or death. BUT, "you shall not surely die" echoes in our mind and will and physical nature, and the will to serve self rather than obey, and the finger snakes out to the wire...!

Thus it was with sin. Because of human limitations of experience due to our created nature, to know as God was to be experential knowledge, not unactualized potential awareness. And despite the warning and clear instructions, both Original parents just chose to "reach out and touch", thus freely choosing disobedience. The shock of that choice runs yet through all humanity!

The fallacy of the Deceiver's argument is all too plain to us. Disobedience did not lead to growth personally or interpersonally or privately or socially. It led to diminuition. The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey says!

I think CS Lewis' portrayal of the reward of the obedience on Perelandra shows how God would have felt about human obedience. It is a mythic presentation of the reality that was possible as best a human mind post-Fall-but-redeemed could conceive it. I think in the actions of Jesus of Nazareth during his ministry we see the possible realities that actualization of sin deprived humanity of: water to wine, control of weather, walking on water, uninterrupted rapport with the Father. I think too that this answers the question "what God was hoping for". God was desirous of obedience, not that our obedience added anything to Him, but that it added so much to humanity's realization of its created nature. His plan was to enhance our nature by fuller realization of the abilities undiscovered which were, unfortunatley, negated by sin. Imagine a disobedient human with Jesus' powers! Makes Sauron or Lord Voldemort look infantile. Idi Amin or Hitler did enough damage within limited human capability, didn't they?

Hope this helps. It is long !

[brownjenkins]

interesting interpretation, however, this idea that adam and eve had knowledge about death, or that much education in the ways of good and evil is reading a lot into the text of the genesis that simply isn't there

in the perelandra dr. ransom plays the role of guide and educator to counter "the devil"... there is no such character in the genesis... one can say "well obviously god must have taught them this or that"... but that is just speculation

which is not to say that it is not valid speculation

i just think my view is another way of looking at it... and just as valid... the possibility that god intended the fall of humanity

[inked]

brownjenkins,

I only asserted the deduction that Eve knew what the Deceiver meant in regard to physical death.
I did not assert they had education in good and evil. They knew the good. The precise temptation was to be as God knowing good and evil. The key was "to be as God" not the fruits of knowing. Note the clever use of not saying that such knowledge would NOT be in the same mode as God's knowledge. That's why the temptor is known as the Deceiver.

I most emphatically did not say they were taught as the Perelandrian story. They were incapapble of apprehending good and evil in the mode of God. They were not called to understanding but to obedience. This is the entire locus of the story - the will. Not the mind, not the body, but the will.

God did not intend the Fall in the sense I think you suggest. The use of intention smuggles in the will of God. If he intended that mankind Fall, mankind was not free. If he intended that mankind not Fall, mankind was not free. If God created mankind with truly free will, then the possibilities were only two: obedience or disobedience. If mankind made a truly free choice, the outcome was independent of God's intent by a grant from God. This is why Christianity has such emphasis on choice. Our choices matter. We bear responsibility for our choices.

I do not think we can read back into Genesis' account of the Fall an intention of God for the Fall. Now it is true that the Fall is sometimes referrred to as "O felix culpa" because of the Grace of God active in Christ Jesus for our Redemption. But that is post hoc observation.

Validity has to do with proper argument in terms and uses of logic. You may have a valid argument. Opinions are not valid in that sense. We all have opinions which may or may not have objective, materialistic antecedents subject to argument. We all have feelings as well. But to assert that feelings are valid is not the same as opinions as argument. Which meaning did you intend?

Now, this is not a criticism but a seeking after clarification, are all opinions created equally?

[Nurvingiel]

Wow, there has been a lot of responses! I'm glad you guys are having fun.

Catholocism and Anglicanism are two different denominations of Christianity. Catholic also has another meaning to do with all of Christianity. (Which I believe you got into, but after reading everyone's posts I maybe forget and/or misinterpret something.)

The discussion about Adam and Eve makes me wonder, why did God have a Tree of Knowledge? God gave Adam and Eve free will, and the ability to eat apples. Why not make it an Obscure Rock of knowledge that you would have to eat. Then it would have been impossible for them to "blow it". (I bet there's some obvious theological answer to that too! )

[Rían]

Great writing, inked! I'm really enjoying it I like how you brought out the focus on physical-only consequences, when the reality is that there are consequences beyond the physical ...

BTW, who here has read Milton's Paradise Lost? Great book, and deals with some of these issues in a beautiful poetic form.

Brownie, after reading your comments on the possibility that God intended mankind to fall - what purpose do you think this would this achieve? Just wondering what your thoughts were, here.

(Personally, I look at it with a slightly different variation - God did not intend for mankind to fall, but He knew they would, and provided for it.)

And I'll throw in another question here, one of the best ones I've ever heard - it was from MasterMothra - given that Adam and Eve did not have sin natures, and yet chose to sin, what will prevent us from sinning once we're in heaven, or can we sin once we're in heaven (and do not have a sin nature anymore), and if not, why not, if we still have free will?

That was a fascinating question to think about. I've thought about it for over a year now, and have come up with some ideas on it. I'd like to get your ideas especially, inked, but anyone else's, too.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

interesting interpretation, however, this idea that adam and eve had knowledge about death, or that much education in the ways of good and evil is reading a lot into the text of the genesis that simply isn't there

Well, as the saying goes, "What part of 'Thou shalt not' don't you understand?"

The sin was not an error in judgement on Adam's part (because he didn't have Ransom to teach him, or didn't know all the technical details of death); the sin was a deliberate disobedience on Adam's part against one clear command while in Paradise. And as Milton puts it,

Paradise Lost, book I (bolding mine)
.... what cause
Moved our grand parents, in that happy state
Favored of Heav'n so highly, to fall off
From their Creator and transgress His will
For one restraint, lords of the world besides ...

And why one restraint? Why not the rock of the knowledge of good and evil, as Nurvi suggested? Well, because

Paradise Lost, book III, God speaking (bolding mine)
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have given sincere
Of true alligiance, constant faith, or love
Where only what they needs must do appeared,
Not what they would? What praise could they receive?
What pleasure I, from such obedience paid,
When will and reason (reason also is a choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoiled,
Made passive both, had served necesssity,
Not Me?