Theology IV

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Unity with God. According to Christian theology, this can only come about through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He is the one mediator between God and man, His blood necessary for our salvation, and faith in Him necessary for eternal life.

If one does not have access to the fullness of the truth, of course one should worship God in whatever way one can. One's soul is willing to have the fullness of God and simply lacks sufficient information, in that condition. Then, even if you don't know about Jesus, you can still be saved, for you are embracing God as far as you can, and He'll lead you the rest of the way. Even if that must be after death.

If one has access to and sufficient knowledge of the fullness of God's truth, though, and then rejects it for a mixture of truth and lie (or a religion in which the completeness of truth is not found, but only pieces of it), this is a purposeful rejection of total unity with God. Total unity with God is the meaning of salvation and is the nature of eternal life. No one can be saved except by faith in Jesus Christ. People who have never heard of Him can yet be saved by His blood, as they have faith in Him to the greatest extent they are able in their situation, but anyone who has genuinely received the truth and rejected it has counted himself unworthy of eternal life by rejecting complete truth for the partial (Acts 13:46).

How do you know when you've heard the full truth? What if it just doesn't seem true to you? Now, Christianity mostly describes my own world view. It is the most true to me of all the beliefs I've heard about. But I have heard things in other beliefs that I wouldn't say are not true and do not contradict what I believe as a Christian. Also, some things that are maybe supposed to be true to Christians I don't necessarily believe.

While I am a Christian, I still think about what I believe and I don't always align perfectly with what I perceive to be what we're supposed to believe. (I'm very sorry about the syntax of the preceding sentence.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As Jesus said, no one is truly good except God. One might add that those that have entered perfect unity with God are also, therefore, good, as they have no sin left in them. All of us humans on Earth are a mixture of good and bad. The question is what road are we taking? Are we taking the road to complete unity with God, or the road toward separation from Him? If we reject complete truth for fragments of truth and lies, we are separating ourselves from God. That is what it means to embrace a path that does not contain fullness of truth, once the truth has been revealed.

The only path to complete goodness is through the One who is perfectly good, the single mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.

For us Christians, this is certainly true. But other religions have other ways to achieve perfect unity with God, Nirvana, or whatever other name is given to basically the ultimate goal of many religions. I feel it's a bit arrogant to say our way is definitely right and the other ways are definitely not correct. How can we know that? For us Christians, Jesus is the way to salvation, but we can't know for sure that we're right.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That is not true. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." He is not "a way, a truth and a life," through whom only "some" come to the Father. That view is modern revisionism, changing Christianity and Jesus' words to fit our own present-day, imperfect, human social standards. It is neither Jesus nor Christianity. We claim something so, so much greater, the wonder of the Incarnation, the wonder that God came to men and brought with Him the fullness of truth, not mere fragments. And Jesus, who is God revealed to man (even His name, Emanuel, means "God with us"), is necessarily the only way to God as He Himself is the only God! One cannot be united with God without being united with God! One has to be united to Jesus, and by the means He has provided: His sacrifice for our sin on the cross. That is the only way by which we can be cleansed of evil and made pure for everlasting life. It is impossible by "living a good life" by human standards to become one with God's perfection. We must be saved from ALL sin to be totally united with the God in whom there is NO sin. And this includes belief in damaging lies- that has to go, as it has no place in the nature of God, and we must be united with Him completely to be saved. To be saved from sin we must give sin up, thus truly accepting Jesus' sacrifice that paid the price for our sins, and showing our real repentance. We must rely in and live in the one who saved us. To the extent that we fail to do this, we are not uniting ourselves from Him but are separating ourselves from Him.

I know He said "I am the way," but I still think it is too simplistic to say that everyone who is not Christian is automatically completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Your view throws out the need for repentance and the necessity of reliance on Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Your view essentially throws out the need for humans to be redeemed from sin, which throws out all Christian theology on salvation. What you have been supporting is modern relativism, which presents truth and lie as being equal and neither superior to the other, for it says all beliefs are equally valid or true, however contradictory they may be. Thus it offers no escape from falsehood and rejects the need of Jesus, who called Himself "the truth." Thus it misdirects people away from God.

The idea of repenting for one's since is good. I don't see why my beliefs do away with this. Why would Christians not do it? And this is a moot point to a non-Christian, unless their beliefs have a similar idea.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To the extent that they teach damaging lies, they are evil. To the extent that they teach truth, they are good. I certainly believe it is possible for pagans to be saved. People are responsible for what they have been given. If they have been given a mixture of truth and lie, they have responsibility only for the pieces of truth they have been made aware of. If they, in that condition, are then shown far greater truth, then they become responsible to become united to it too. For unity with God is complete unity to the truth, and this can never be achieved as long as unity to the truth is purposefully spurned in any way.

Well, lying is pretty bad. Evil, even. But what gives you the authority to declare that some Pagan beliefs are lies? How do you know that? They are not true to you, and that's totally fine, but they are not necessarily lies. There is a difference.

If someone said, "Harm innocent people," then we have a problem. But there aren't any Pagan belief systems that I've ever heard of that teach this.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think you're being overly simplistic. Satan undoubtedly dominates some pagans. Others, he undoubtedly does not dominate. Some pagans are just plain evil people. Others are truly embracing God's truth insofar as they are aware of it and are genuinely seeking complete unity with Him. These are not in league with Satan, and if they persist, there can be no doubt they will be saved through Christ's blood, whether in this life or the next.

I don't actually believe in Satan, but Satan is a great metaphor for evil. And some people do seem to choose evil actions more often than good. One could describe those people as being dominated by Satan. But everyone, including Christians, has the capacity for evil, so why pick on the Pagans?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You can't say that, Nurvi. It's blasphemy.

Well, it's a moot point since Jesus or God never did say "Paganism = Satan" right? Maybe sometimes I do think blasphemous thoughts. I will accept that God might not be impressed with me for the heretical/blasphemous things that I sometimes think. But He did give me a great brain, I like to think that He wants me to use it, even if I am sometimes rebellious.

Sometimes I don't feel like I fit in as a Christian, but no other faith describes my beliefs as well. (No faith describes them perfectly though.)

I am very hestitant to divest myself from a religion where Jesus Christ is a central figure.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

If you are a christian you should know that the bible is against the practices of all other religious, it does not support them. God hates them. So it does not matter if the people who practice them mean well, that is not how the god of the bible takes it, he sees it as rebellion. These practices are not about worshiping him so he sees it as "Worshiping dumb idols."

God sees this as folly, worshiping something that did not create you, "Even wood and stone," (Deuteronomy 28:64). He will hate you for it, because you give him no credit. So according to christianity, it is not just unacceptable, but blasphemy.

I agree with Lief that God does not hate anybody; He doesn't even hate Satan. God loves us all. Of course, while God does love us unconditioinally, He does want us to listen to what He has to say.

The Bible is against Christians practicing other religions at the same time. I think. I mean, if we say that we are Christian and commit to worshipping God, we can't go around also worshipping Enki. I do have a small hammer of Thor carved of stone though. But I don't worship it.

I doubt the Bible, which contains the commandment to love thy neighbour, is actively opposed to the beliefs of other people. Jesus Christ was a Jew for His entire life, don't forget. I doubt he had a problem with Judaism. He did take issue with some of the practices of some of the high ranking Jewish leaders of the time but Judaism itself is no problem. This is an example of what I believe is crucial religious tolerance inherant to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Of course it is - I'm not Christian. Therefore, I don't buy in to the Christian mythology.

Exactly, and why should you? Christianity is awesome, but if you don't believe in it than people can hardly expect you to believe in our beliefs.

Originally Posted by Curufin

No, not really. I know malevolent spirits exist because I've sensed one before. Scared the crap out of me, too. But do I believe there's a super evil spirit who wants nothing more than to undo all the good that the Christian God has done? No. Think about it. In order to believe in Satan, you have to believe in the Christian God. I don't. When I said that Satan was God's foil, I meant that the Satan mythology makes no sense without the Christian God mythology. It's almost a yin-yang idea.

Yes, I also don't see why a non-Christian would necessarily believe in Satan.

Heck, as I said above, I don't even believe in Satan. I believe that evil exists, and that people are tempted to do evil things, to believe evil things, or to work against god. But I don't actually believe in a fellow with horns and looks very suspiciously like Pan who actively opposes God. I believe that evil actively opposes God, and Satan is a metaphor for this.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I like this whole "Satan was created billions of years before humans" bizness from someone who claims to get his info from the Bible.

That's hilarious.

Well, the Bible does contain information that pre-dates the time it was written. A lot of important Jewish stories and parables from the oral tradition are written in the Bible; they are very old. I don't know if anyone said "billions" but the idea of ancient things showing up in the Bible is not necessarily silly. The flood story is very old, as we discussed earlier.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I see. That view does contradict ours, for certain, for we see spirits as either fully good or fully bad, with the single exception of those in Purgatory.

While I suppose you could see spirits as fully good or bad, it is certainly not necessarily, nor is it in accord with normative Catholic thought. I would also say it doesn't make sense, as demons are corrupted angels, and it doesn't seem very meaningful to speak of a corrupted good as being wholly evil.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

While I suppose you could see spirits as fully good or bad, it is certainly not necessarily, nor is it in accord with normative Catholic thought. I would also say it doesn't make sense, as demons are corrupted angels, and it doesn't seem very meaningful to speak of a corrupted good as being wholly evil.

Gwai, we're talking about different things. The kind of good you're referring to is goodness of design, not goodness of moral character. Those in Hell have no goodness whatsoever of moral character: that is what separation from God means. They do still have goodness of design, though. Curufin was saying that evil spirits still have some goodness of moral character. Would you agree with her view?

[Willow Oran]

I've read the Britannica Online's version in one of my own books at home, too. I don't have any reason at present to disagree with either source. Often, myths have more than one version.

You're betraying your bias here, Lief. Would you be so cavalier about versions of the Bible? You need to be equally careful with your sources regardless of the tradition under discussion. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

As for the rest. You missed my point about the abstraction of conflict that occurs in Christianity. The ideas of a God who is all Good and a Satan who is all Evil is a simplification of the conflicts of older/contemporary traditions wherein the contending gods are rarely explicitly called good or evil and the conflicts are more directly connected to human concerns.

To say that Christianity is more complex simply because you've spent years studying it and haven't stopped learning is rather illogical.
Christianity rose after literacy. It's development was recorded from its birth whereas the other mythologies we've been talking about were only partially recorded and originated when their worshippers still relied on oral tradition. People do spend their lives studying them, but there's only so much that's survived to be studied.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Whether parallels between both modern and historical devil figures come from idea borrowing or not is irrelevant to my point to Curufin, that Satan is far from a solely Christian belief.

But if the parallels between Satan and the other mentioned gods are not convincing enough, the idea that Satan is solely a christian creation is strengthened.

Taking some characteristics from already existing gods into a figure from a younger religion, doesn't make those characters the same. This does nothing to support the idea that Satan exists outside christianity. Possibly, there are other mythological figures where the comparison is more favourable for your idea, but not these.

Agricultural fertility cycles are also, in a Christian view, types of the scriptural battle between Jesus and Satan, the death of Jesus and resurrection, which brings new life to the world.

I am ever amazed at christianity's ability to take from other mythologies what they like and adopt it to its own, whether it needs a bit of twisting in the process to fit in or not. But I do not subscribe to it nor am I a fan of it, it has made finding mythological material not 'cleansed' by christians pretty hard to find.

IMHO, you're wrong . We may just have to agree to disagree . . . unless you see my point about chaos and its connection to Satan, in the Bible.

I dont, so agree to disagree seems about right.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

You're betraying your bias here, Lief. Would you be so cavalier about versions of the Bible?

With the Bible, I am seeking historically accurate truth. With the myths we are discussing, I'm trying to see what kinds of stories were believed to be true back then. The latter is an easier job.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

You need to be equally careful with your sources regardless of the tradition under discussion. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

You can get same account from the nation master encyclopedia, answers.com, or demonology.eu. I don't know how reliable all those sites are, of course. But you know, it's common for there to be multiple versions of an ancient story existing and circulating. Just look at all the 4th and 5th century apocryphal "gospels," with their different variations of the story of Jesus, and you'll see what I mean. I'm not going to just "believe" that the Wikipedia version of the story never existed unless I see good evidence for this.

The article did, in fact, cite four sources for its various information. It had a couple citations from the Hesiod, and some of the points you appear to be questioning come from: ^ W. Porzig, "Illuyankas und Typhon", Kleinasiatische Forschung I.3 (1930) pp 379-86.

Typhon's association with evil is also apparent (if his war with the gods is not enough) from a look at Typhon's offspring:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Amongst his children by Echidna are Cerberus, the serpent-like Lernaean Hydra, the Chimera, the hundred-headed dragon Ladon, the half-woman half-lion Sphinx, the two-headed wolf Orthrus, and the Nemean Lion.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

As for the rest. You missed my point about the abstraction of conflict that occurs in Christianity. The ideas of a God who is all Good and a Satan who is all Evil is a simplification of the conflicts of older/contemporary traditions wherein the contending gods are rarely explicitly called good or evil and the conflicts are more directly connected to human concerns.

I presume you're referring here to the fall of Satan as the story that is less related to human concerns. I don't know how that works out logically, though, as each of the stories I've provided includes a "fall of the devil figure" story. Thus we can see that those religions were in this respect as connected or disconnected as Christianity, when it comes to human affairs.

As for the crucifixion of Jesus, the point in time where our God smote the head of the serpent, this is as deeply entwined with human affairs as it is possible to get.

So I don't agree with your point at all.

The battles of the ancient gods did represent order vs. chaos, and I already described how that is deeply ingrained in the scriptural battle between God and the devil. Thus the focus of the battles is the same. The connection to agriculture cycles also is not a disconnection from Christianity, as Christianity would easily see the agricultural cycles as typological references to the battle between Jesus and the devil.

If a battle is over "good" and "evil," while I agree with you that this is to a significant extent abstract (though also closely entwined with many of the most important decisions we ever make), that does not make it less complex in any way.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

To say that Christianity is more complex simply because you've spent years studying it and haven't stopped learning is rather illogical.

I'm not trying to say it's more complex. I'm trying to say your view that it's less complex is baseless.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But if the parallels between Satan and the other mentioned gods are not convincing enough, the idea that Satan is solely a christian creation is strengthened.

Agreed. Except that I'd exchange your word "convincing" for the word "strong," because I know that it's just about completely impossible to convince anyone of anything, if they don't want to be convinced.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Taking some characteristics from already existing gods into a figure from a younger religion, doesn't make those characters the same.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This does nothing to support the idea that Satan exists outside christianity. Possibly, there are other mythological figures where the comparison is more favourable for your idea, but not these.

That is your assessment of the evidence. I have provided quite a lot of points of parallel between the Christian "serpent" and the "serpent" figure that fights the gods from these other religions, and you have not tried to disprove any of them. I have also shown how this battle between chaos and order is also reflected in the battle between Satan and Jesus. But if you don't find all this convincing of my view that these religions had a "devil figure" that closely (though certainly not perfectly) parallels Satan in the Christian religion, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I am ever amazed at christianity's ability to take from other mythologies what they like and adopt it to its own, whether it needs a bit of twisting in the process to fit in or not.

Eärniel, many basic Christian beliefs or doctrines can be found in a broad variety of parts of the world, in religions that have many differences from our own. They are imperfectly presented, as is obvious from the fact that differences exist between them. Truth is revealed through in those places through fallible human understanding, and thus has variation from what is real. Also, sometimes it is, in ways, subverted by evil. So to "twist" other religions' beliefs to remove the imperfect and emphasize in them what is united with the perfect, so that people's lives may be more greatly blessed, is a virtuous act. Resisting error and promoting truth is a good thing!

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But I do not subscribe to it nor am I a fan of it, it has made finding mythological material not 'cleansed' by christians pretty hard to find.

If I was a secularist, I might feel the same way. But IMO, you're just being intolerant of other people's beliefs on these matters (ours) .

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I dont, so agree to disagree seems about right.

What, regarding my points about chaos' connection to Satan, does not make sense to you?

[Curufin]

But IMO, you're just being intolerant of other people's beliefs on these matters (ours)

*cough*potkettle*coughcough*

[Willow Oran]

With the Bible, I am seeking historically accurate truth. With the myths we are discussing, I'm trying to see what kinds of stories were believed to be true back then. The latter is an easier job.

The Bible when taken in the context of mythology is only one of many and when I study mythology I am also seeking historically accurate truth. There's very little to go on. It isn't an easier job.

You can get same account from the nation master encyclopedia, answers.com, or demonology.eu. I don't know how reliable all those sites are, of course. But you know, it's common for there to be multiple versions of an ancient story existing and circulating. Just look at all the 4th and 5th century apocryphal "gospels," with their different variations of the story of Jesus, and you'll see what I mean. I'm not going to just "believe" that the Wikipedia version of the story never existed unless I see good evidence for this.

The article did, in fact, cite four sources for its various information. It had a couple citations from the Hesiod, and some of the points you appear to be questioning come from: ^ W. Porzig, "Illuyankas und Typhon", Kleinasiatische Forschung I.3 (1930) pp 379-86.

This is no excuse. You cite from a primary source if you can and if you have to use a secondary source you go with either the most academically credible or multiple sources. My quotations have all been from translations appoved by trustworthy professors or from online sources accessed through the university library.
Wikipedia is usually recommended only as a jumping off point, and that only because it does sometimes have useful citations. Since you chose to go with that questionable source you ought to have included those citations from the first.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

How do you know when you've heard the full truth?

You don't "know." Nothing on Earth can be "known." You must believe. But we know the foolishness of reliance on the fallible from the innumerable human differences on what is good and right, and what is not. Thus we ought to have faith in what we believe to be infallible, rather than faith in what we know to be fallible: our own human judgment. We must escape reliance on humanity, with all its errors, and we must have faith in what we believe to be infallible, submitting to it our reasoning and foolish human weaknesses and relying on it for true knowledge. God is perfect. He can be trusted. Humanity is imperfect and cannot be.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What if it just doesn't seem true to you?

Then we are relying on our human instincts and reasoning. However, if we supplant the infallible standard with the fallible standard of our own personal human reasoning, we have no way of knowing whether we're right or all those millions of people with different opinions are. Thus we are lost in a wilderness of errors by separating ourselves from the infallible standard.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now, Christianity mostly describes my own world view. It is the most true to me of all the beliefs I've heard about. But I have heard things in other beliefs that I wouldn't say are not true and do not contradict what I believe as a Christian. Also, some things that are maybe supposed to be true to Christians I don't necessarily believe.

While I am a Christian, I still think about what I believe and I don't always align perfectly with what I perceive to be what we're supposed to believe. (I'm very sorry about the syntax of the preceding sentence.)

A key difficulty for you, IMO, is that you do not recognize the existence of infallible truth revealed by a loving God to humanity, in order to most perfectly bless them. Rather, you believe in reliance on human, fallible understanding of truth and approaching God in our own ways. You trust in that "wilderness of errors," with its millions of contradictory beliefs.

You have grown up in an environment where God's truth is imperfectly revealed, for you, if I understand correctly, have not been brought up to rely on what you believe to be infallible. You have grown up in quite a liberal environment, a modern environment with modern beliefs, in which it is customary to have faith in human understanding rather than receiving human understanding through faith in infallible understanding.

Your environment has shaped you. It has taught you to be "moral," what has been seen by Christians for 2,000 years to be immoral, and to rely on yourself and the beliefs of our culture rather than on infallible truth. Thus you rely on what was not, what is always changing, and what cannot be known with certainty. You're relying on humanity. Which is entirely untrustworthy as a place to rely on, as we can see from the great changability and diversity of its opinions and understanding, regarding ethics. It is reliance on nothing. We must rely on what we believe to be infallible, on God, not on men or ourselves, if we wish to belong to God.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

For us Christians, this is certainly true. But other religions have other ways to achieve perfect unity with God, Nirvana, or whatever other name is given to basically the ultimate goal of many religions. I feel it's a bit arrogant to say our way is definitely right and the other ways are definitely not correct. How can we know that? For us Christians, Jesus is the way to salvation, but we can't know for sure that we're right.

No, no one can know with 100% certainty that he or she is right. You don't need that to make judgments, though. If you needed that to make judgments, everyone's entire lives would be paralyzed. The best we can do is rely on what the best evidence available tells us is infallible, rather than on what we know to be fallible. It is not our own human judgment that other religions, to the extent that they disagree with our own, are wrong. It is the revealed truth of God that we have faith in (with many excellent reasons to have faith in it).

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I know He said "I am the way," but I still think it is too simplistic to say that everyone who is not Christian is automatically completely wrong.

I don't say they're "completely" wrong. To the extent that they disagree with the fullness of God's revelation (Christianity), they are wrong. There is much in other religions that is bulls-eye on target, though. To the extent that people refuse to take "the way," Jesus, they are wrong, if Jesus is to be believed. Believing Jesus is faith in what we believe to be infallible. And like I said, there are a lot of very good reasons to believe Jesus has revealed God's truth infallibly, but I find more and more in discussion that the "evidences" don't tend to be that important. However powerful they are, people believe what they believe primarily because of their emotional, personal circumstances, and not because of evidence.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The idea of repenting for one's since is good. I don't see why my beliefs do away with this. Why would Christians not do it?

Because in your view, reliance on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is not necessary for people. The cross does not offer salvation to the world, to you, but only to Christians. And I don't know, personally, why Jesus even went through all that if it was only to save "Christians" who would have been saved anyway without that saving act . Without the cross, there is no need for repentance, as Christian repentance theology is tied to the forgiveness of sins that comes to us through the cross. Without the cross, there can be no forgiveness, so repentance is pointless because God is just. God's justice is met in Jesus' sacrifice, so repentance is met with forgiveness. That is the nature of the cross you seem to be treating as basically unimportant.

Salvation, and unity with God, indeed, perfection of unity with virtue, is all tied to the cross. All Christianity is grounded on the cross. But the cross is pointless if it is only for "Christians," and people would be saved anyway without it, for the meaning of the cross is that Jesus died to save the world. 1 John 4:14 says, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." Savior of the world, not just of Christians, and the meaning of His being as "Savior" is that without Him, we would not be saved, but would die in our sins. And according to John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." And John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

The belief that the Christianity is right for Christians and Hinduism right for Hindus and Islam right for Muslims, etc. etc., is a belief that comes from modern culture and from humanity. Thus it is a fallible understanding. It does not even confess itself to be infallible, but readily is professed to be a human view rather than one that is infallibly revealed. Thus it is not to be given faith if it contradicts what we believe to be infallible, the faith God revealed.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, lying is pretty bad. Evil, even. But what gives you the authority to declare that some Pagan beliefs are lies? How do you know that? They are not true to you, and that's totally fine, but they are not necessarily lies. There is a difference.

The fact that there are many contradictions between Pagan beliefs and the beliefs of all other religions shows that there are untrue beliefs in either paganism or those other religions. That is not a matter of it being untrue to me. Who it is true "to" is not important. What is important is whether it is actually true or untrue. Is what is professed to be real really real? Is there really a god Baal? Is there really a Mount Olympus? Our "feeling" about the reality of Baal, or whether or not we think he's real, is not the point at all. It is irrelevant to the nature of truth. What matters is whether it really is true. It is an undeniable logical fact that there are religious untruths. Christianity's claim that there is a Trinity and Islam's claim that there is not cannot simultaneously be true. Christianity and Islam's claim that there is only one God and Mormonism's claim that there are thousands cannot be simultaneously true. One belief or the other (or maybe both- maybe atheism's right) is untrue. I can keep going down the list of necessarily contradictory religious beliefs about truth. It is logically impossible for all religions to be completely true. Outright contradictions of truth are lies against the nature of reality.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If someone said, "Harm innocent people," then we have a problem. But there aren't any Pagan belief systems that I've ever heard of that teach this.

Irrelevant. "Harm to innocent people," when "harm" is defined by fallible human understanding, always seems to fail to take into account all that should be considered harmful. Beliefs can be terribly harmful to innocent people without their adherents believing them to be so.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't actually believe in Satan, but Satan is a great metaphor for evil. And some people do seem to choose evil actions more often than good. One could describe those people as being dominated by Satan. But everyone, including Christians, has the capacity for evil, so why pick on the Pagans?

I don't particularly pick on Pagans. In fact, I almost never have talked about modern Pagans at all, before the last few days. It's worthwhile to try to steer people away from evil and toward good, where we encounter evil, so I will frequently resist what I believe to be lies against the nature of goodness and truth, when I hear them. That doesn't mean we should bludgeon people with condemnation.

I disagree with you about Satan being a metaphor . . . but given that you think of him as a metaphor for evil, how do you think Jesus can "love" him? Does God love evil? If some robber stole from a bank, would God "love" that act, because he loves evil?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, it's a moot point since Jesus or God never did say "Paganism = Satan" right?

Jesus did say follow the Ten Commandments, and the first of those (if I recall correctly), commands that we have no other gods before the one God of Israel, not making any idols or bowing down to them. Galatians 5:20 also condemns "idolatry" (the worship of other gods than the one, true God) and "sorcery." Paganism breaches Jesus' command by worshipping other gods. Pagans also frequently practice magic, which is condemned in the following passages:
Ex. 22:18; Lev. 19:26,31,20:6,27; 1 Sam. 15:23a; 2 Kings 23:24; IChron. 10:13; Is. 2:6, 8:19-20, 47:13-14; Ez.13:20-23; Dan. 2:27-28, 5:15-17; Acts 13:7-10a, 16:16-18; Gal. 5:19-20; Rev. 22:15.

The practice of magic, where its powers are real rather than fraudulent, is considered to be from Satan. The worship of gods other than the one true God is also considered to be idolatry, which is part of the domain of Satan. Though Pagans are not necessarily "particularly" associated with Satan, one could say. Idolatry has the spiritual meaning of anything one views more highly, or is more devoted to, than one is toward God. Thus there are a vast number of people guilty of "idolatry" who don't worship false gods in the normal sense we might think of "idolatry." They might love money, or their spouses, or their families, or fame, or entertainment, above everything (including God), and that makes it their "god" that they worship. They also can sometimes become spiritually enslaved to such things. So idolatry extends much further than Paganism alone. Also, "magic" extends far beyond Pagan witches or wizards. There are many who practice "magic" in other faiths, including Christianity. A number of people who view themselves as Christians actually wield powers from the devil.

Paganism does not equal Satan, though. To the extent that it disagrees with Christianity, it is not true, and is often dangerous. The same is true of all belief systems that deviate from Christianity. I definitely would not particularly single out Paganism. I've described above some of what I believe to be its faults, but these are not confined to Paganism. Sin and error spread so much wider than that.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Maybe sometimes I do think blasphemous thoughts. I will accept that God might not be impressed with me for the heretical/blasphemous things that I sometimes think. But He did give me a great brain, I like to think that He wants me to use it, even if I am sometimes rebellious.

By all means, use it . . . but do not depend on it as your principle guide. It is fallible, and thus untrustworthy. So is mine. God should be the principle guide for all of us, destroying our fallibility through our faith in His infallible judgments that He has revealed to us. And then our intellect is strengthened, blessed and illuminated, because it is increasingly brought into unity with the mind of Christ.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Sometimes I don't feel like I fit in as a Christian, but no other faith describes my beliefs as well. (No faith describes them perfectly though.)

I am very hestitant to divest myself from a religion where Jesus Christ is a central figure.

I'd like to really encourage you to carefully consider the need of humanity for infallibility. You said yourself that you do not know what is true. How contradictory this is, to your decision to trust in your own human judgment, in spite of the fact that it contradicts the human judgment of so many millions! If millions of people contradict one another on ethics, human judgment is altogether unreliable as our principle guide. It is tempting to make ourselves into our own personal highest guides to the meaning of morality, rather than relying on what our faith teaches God has revealed infallibly. But it is futile, as we can see from the great diversity of contradictory religious opinions, and it is dangerous, as we can see from the host of immoral actions people have justified in the name of religion, and from the fact that many people view our perspectives or behaviors on many issues to be immoral. Thus we have to rely on the infallible. The fallible is like sand. There are millions of people, like millions of grains of sand, separate in their judgment, with their own private opinions that contradict one another, all separate. Jesus taught that the man who builds his house on the "sand" suffers the destruction of that house when the flood comes. Therefore, He urged, build your house on the rock! Believers who are united in faith in the infallible are like that rock, for they are fused rather than separate. They are one, not scattered like the grains of sand. They also trust in the infallible, which is a rock, eternal and stable, rather than shifting sand that changes wherever you walk. Without the infallible, we can reasonably trust nothing at all and lie in the utter darkness of human uncertainty.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

*cough*potkettle*coughcough*

I don't personally see anything more wrong with "intolerance" toward wrong moral beliefs than there is wrong with a math professor who contradicts his incorrect students, so that they can come to the right conclusions and become more talented. You disagree with many of the views I've expressed in this thread. How intolerant . I don't have a problem with the intolerance of disagreement that everyone shares. I was just taking an opportunity to pinion the hypocritical worthlessness of the modern "tolerance" ethic.

[Curufin]

I don't personally see anything more wrong with "intolerance" toward wrong moral beliefs than there is wrong with a math professor who contradicts his incorrect students, so that they can come to the right conclusions and become more talented.

Are you actually comparing the validity of faith with the validity of math???

Wow, Lief. Just. . .wow.

[Willow Oran]

I'm with Curufin, Lief. Your arguments have been sounding more like sermons than contributions to an intellectual discussion. It really takes the enjoyment out of debating.

[Curufin]

And I second what Willow has to say. It's impossible to have an intellectual debate with you, because you refuse to step outside your tiny, very narrow box and consider other possibilities.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Are you actually comparing the validity of faith with the validity of math???

Wow, Lief. Just. . .wow.

Religion's truth is less provable than math. It is not "faith alone," though. There is an incredible amount of evidence supporting the truth of Christianity. I believe it is verifiable beyond reasonable doubt. The doubts I have encountered have never been based on reason, fundamentally. They've been essentially emotional and secondarily reasonable. Emotion is the womb in which our reason is formed. Our rationality usually tends to be the product of our irrationality. That is the same, with people who come into Christianity. Something deeply personal has to change before they become open to the reason of Christianity.

Willow Oran, I'm not altogether sure I understand the point of some of your comments in your last post.

For instance:

The Bible when taken in the context of mythology is only one of many and when I study mythology I am also seeking historically accurate truth. There's very little to go on. It isn't an easier job.

Do you research mythology to find historically accurate truth in the myths? If so, I agree that that is not an easier job than the one I have when examining the Bible.

But I don't understand what this has to do with our discussion . . . my point was that when I look at myths, I look for what they believed to be true back then, rather than for what is really true. That is an easier task than looking at the myths for what is really true, the task you seem to be engaged in. But it's all that's necessary to understand the devil figures we're talking about.

This is no excuse. You cite from a primary source if you can and if you have to use a secondary source you go with either the most academically credible or multiple sources. My quotations have all been from translations appoved by trustworthy professors or from online sources accessed through the university library.
Wikipedia is usually recommended only as a jumping off point, and that only because it does sometimes have useful citations. Since you chose to go with that questionable source you ought to have included those citations from the first.

I never use Wikipedia when writing a paper for my university, and in the university, I adhere to the standards you describe. For online debate, I sometimes am lazier. If my argument is being attacked with contradictory and relatively substantial evidence, I always look for additional information.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

And I second what Willow has to say. It's impossible to have an intellectual debate with you, because you refuse to step outside your tiny, very narrow box and consider other possibilities.

You mean that because I don't agree with you, it's impossible to debate with me on an intellectual level? That's what it sounds like, when you say I'm incapable of debating with you on an intellectual level because I don't "step outside [my] tiny, very narrow box." I am considering everything you, and the others here, have said. I just disagree, and have been explaining why.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I'm with Curufin, Lief. Your arguments have been sounding more like sermons than contributions to an intellectual discussion. It really takes the enjoyment out of debating.

Each response I've made, I hope, directly responds to what was said. Even if you disagree with the response. If they sound too theological to you at times . . . well, it's the theology thread, and the topic of our conversation is religion. So my response to that might just have to be, "tough."

I'm sorry my responses don't seem to you or Curufin "intellectual."

[Curufin]

You mean that because I don't agree with you, it's impossible to debate with me on an intellectual level?

No, that's not what I mean at all, Leif. I have other fundamentalist Christian friends, and we have debates and discussions just fine. It's just that you're so condemning of anything but what you believe to be right that you can't even accept the idea that it might, possibly have some validity. Of course you believe that what you believe is right. So do I. That's fine. I don't expect you to agree with me. But when you start condemning me to eternal damnation because I don't agree with you (which, if you'll read back, I have never done - I have never told you that your beliefs were, within a shadow of a doubt, wrong, or that you would somehow be punished because of them), well, then that just crosses the line.

And no, you haven't said "you're going to hell," but you've said my beliefs are influenced by Satan, which to me is an equal thought.

[Willow Oran]

Do you research mythology to find historically accurate truth in the myths? If so, I agree that that is not an easier job than the one I have when examining the Bible.

But I don't understand what this has to do with our discussion . . . my point was that when I look at myths, I look for what they believed to be true back then, rather than for what is really true. That is an easier task than looking at the myths for what is really true, the task you seem to be engaged in. But it's all that's necessary to understand the devil figures we're talking about.

Roughly, yes. Using mythology as textual evidence for ancient cultures. This has quite a lot to do with our discussion. Since our information for these mythologies largely comes from works considered to be oral literature, it isn't enough to analyze them as stories once believed to be true. We don't know that they were considered true.

By looking for textual evidence that can be supported by archeological evidence we can piece together a much clearer picture of the origin culture to inform us as to how sacred these stories actually were, how worship might have taken place, who was in charge of it, what about the culture made this religion true for them...
We can't know what those cultures believed to be true unless we know how true the culture presented through the stories is historically. It's a bit of a frustrating paradox, but that's how it is.

Finding parallels between mythologies is a specific school of thought, and it's one that should be approached with caution because it does tend to just look at the stories and assume them to be past belief systems without trying to put them into cultural or historical context.

Does that help you to understand where I'm coming from with my arguments?

Regarding the citation issue: I know it's tempting to be a bit lazier because this is a recreational discussion and online, but I feel it's disrespectful to all participants to not be as careful here as we would in a paper we planned to turn-in/publish.

Also, I can't find the Porzig article except as a citation. Have you read it yourself? And if so, do you know if it's available to read as an e-text or could you describe in detail just what it is? It looks interesting and I'd like to know more about it.

If they sound too theological to you at times . . . well, it's the theology thread, and the topic of our conversation is religion. So my response to that might just have to be, "tough."

It isn't that they sound too theological. It's the continued attitude of being more privy to the Truth. I realize that you believe very strongly that the christian religion is the one true religion, but we are currently discussing it as being only one of many valid belief systems. We would appreciate it if you would remember that and try to keep the preachy tone down a little.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

No, that's not what I mean at all, Leif. I have other fundamentalist Christian friends, and we have debates and discussions just fine. It's just that you're so condemning of anything but what you believe to be right that you can't even accept the idea that it might, possibly have some validity. Of course you believe that what you believe is right. So do I. That's fine. I don't expect you to agree with me. But when you start condemning me to eternal damnation because I don't agree with you (which, if you'll read back, I have never done - I have never told you that your beliefs were, within a shadow of a doubt, wrong, or that you would somehow be punished because of them), well, then that just crosses the line.

And no, you haven't said "you're going to hell," but you've said my beliefs are influenced by Satan, which to me is an equal thought.

In my view, it is not. Everyone (IMO) is to some extent influenced by Satan. We all have sin in us, decidedly including me (I've got an unhappy list I'm waiting for next Saturday to confess at Church- couldn't get there yesterday), so that is inevitable. I have said that I don't single Paganism out as "particularly" influenced by Satan above the other partially untrue religions. It's just that we've been talking about what I see as the downside of Paganism, so it might sound that way.

I also see all religions as influenced by God, in varying degrees. That includes Paganism. Pagans hold to lots of beliefs that are true. There is truth and there is lie in virtually every religion, and the "lie" part can be logically proven through the fact that they have so many contradictions.

It's just that I believe that in this unpleasant situation of human fallibility distinguishing what is right, God unveiled the totality of truth infallibly, for the benefit of mankind. So I see glory above our own errors and beyond it.

As for my feeling so sure what I believe is true, something you criticize . . . the explanation for this is found in my background. The reason for it is in the way I came to know God in Protestantism, and felt His guidance to the Catholic Church. I fill pages and pages of Entmoot's threads with reasons why I feel so sure. I've been doing that to Entmoot for years. My spiritual journal in my home computer has hundreds of pages of spiritual experiences, chronicling how I believe God has acted in my life up to now, and outside that journal I could cite vast, vast arrays of evidences I find convincing.

There is a lot of reason why I feel so sure. I am not "sure of myself," though. In fact, I dislike sureness of self, or the reliance on the self as the final arbiter for the self on the nature and meaning of knowledge and morality. To me, this kind of presumption appears to be arrogance, especially in view of the vast number of contradictory, differing human beliefs in the world. I am not sure of myself, but I do feel "sure of the Catholic Church." And I feel "sure of Jesus Christ," God bless Him. For many reasons. I'm sorry you find this sureness offensive. It is the result of life experiences and study. But I promise you that I carefully, to the best of my ability, think through the logic and basis of everything that you, and others who disagree with me, say.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Roughly, yes. Using mythology as textual evidence for ancient cultures. This has quite a lot to do with our discussion. Since our information for these mythologies largely comes from works considered to be oral literature, it isn't enough to analyze them as stories once believed to be true. We don't know that they were considered true.

There is good evidence that they were believed to be true. Plato spends some time arguing in Phaedrus against people who interpreted the Greek gods literally, which suggests it was a common view in his time. That has implications on their earlier interpretations of the Typhon. Also, the "Baal" gods were certainly interpreted literally in many places of the Mediterranean, before Christ. Many children were burned to the pantheon in times of distress, and less intimate sacrifices were offered to the gods frequently, in exchange for their expected aid. That implies that a lot of people interpreted Yam and Mot literally too. I asked my Honors Class's mythology professor once about this, and he said the masses appear to have commonly interpreted the gods literally, though many of the intellectuals did not.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

By looking for textual evidence that can be supported by archeological evidence we can piece together a much clearer picture of the origin culture to inform us as to how sacred these stories actually were, how worship might have taken place, who was in charge of it, what about the culture made this religion true for them...
We can't know what those cultures believed to be true unless we know how true the culture presented through the stories is historically.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Finding parallels between mythologies is a specific school of thought, and it's one that should be approached with caution because it does tend to just look at the stories and assume them to be past belief systems without trying to put them into cultural or historical context.

Does that help you to understand where I'm coming from with my arguments?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Regarding the citation issue: I know it's tempting to be a bit lazier because this is a recreational discussion and online, but I feel it's disrespectful to all participants to not be as careful here as we would in a paper we planned to turn-in/publish.

I respect your view. I personally don't feel that way, really. But if anyone seriously objects, with evidence or some other valid reason for objecting, to anything I say, I always seek out additional supports, if the source I originally used isn't that good. And sometimes even if it is.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Also, I can't find the Porzig article except as a citation. Have you read it yourself? And if so, do you know if it's available to read as an e-text or could you describe in detail just what it is? It looks interesting and I'd like to know more about it.

I wish I could help. I don't own it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

It isn't that they sound too theological. It's the continued attitude of being more privy to the Truth. I realize that you believe very strongly that the christian religion is the one true religion, but we are currently discussing it as being only one of many valid belief systems. We would appreciate it if you would remember that and try to keep the preachy tone down a little.

I'm sorry for coming across as preachy. Preachiness is annoying.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I realize that you believe very strongly that the christian religion is the one true religion, but we are currently discussing it as being only one of many valid belief systems.

What do you mean by "valid," if I may ask?