Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Lady Scylla]

If Genesis is to be taken seriously. God, after the Fall, does say "They have become like us" and then cast Adam and Even from the garden before they can eat the tree that would give them immortality.



I always liked this passage, as it seems that, in a way, we're like demi-gods -- but also that we could have become gods ourselves. One interpretation I entertain: God could have destroyed man at that point, a hard reset essentially, and created Adam and Eve 2.0. He didn't, however. This could be a change in mind -- our suffering could be something God himself had to partake in -- perhaps we, ourselves, could rule eventually as Gods. Of course, that's beyond sacrilegious. Optionally, it could be a reflection done on God -- in this way it humanizes him; if we've become like Him after the Fall, and are suffering for it -- well, we're suffering for the knowledge of Good and Evil -- this could be a reflection on God to illustrate that he too might suffer from this knowledge, and is humbled by it.

God says we've become like him, but in a very specific way: "knowledge of Good and Evil" that's it. I don't think that implies that God suffers from this knowledge, or is even compelled to sin. We simply have a similar capacity.

With the tree of life thing there, there's also a possible foreshadowing of Christ coming. I'd actually agree with at least the spirit of your interpretation as us being demigods with the ability to become full Gods. While I wouldn't shape as something so, dare I say, pagan, it would make sense in very Christian concept: The incarnation of Christ, the eternal life given through Christ, was always apart of God's divine plan. It seems to imply here, that in our pre-fall state, unable to know Good and Evil, that we could never have known Christ, because we would not know either Good, nor evil. Thus, in a twisted way, we had to fall.

It actually goes along with something I've advocated for a while now, that the "Fall" is an allegory for the "ascent of man" Early man, though intelligent, were little more than animals. Even Homo sapiens were little more than pack animals for hundreds of thousands of years until around 50,000 BC they suddenly started developing culture: ritualistic practices, settlements, the dawn of civilization essentially.

Well, I never meant it in a manner that God could sin -- but with that knowledge comes great cruelty and beauty. Therefore, God is the embodiment of both good and evil.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

God says we've become like him, but in a very specific way: "knowledge of Good and Evil" that's it. I don't think that implies that God suffers from this knowledge, or is even compelled to sin. We simply have a similar capacity.

With the tree of life thing there, there's also a possible foreshadowing of Christ coming. I'd actually agree with at least the spirit of your interpretation as us being demigods with the ability to become full Gods. While I wouldn't shape as something so, dare I say, pagan, it would make sense in very Christian concept: The incarnation of Christ, the eternal life given through Christ, was always apart of God's divine plan. It seems to imply here, that in our pre-fall state, unable to know Good and Evil, that we could never have known Christ, because we would not know either Good, nor evil. Thus, in a twisted way, we had to fall.

It actually goes along with something I've advocated for a while now, that the "Fall" is an allegory for the "ascent of man" Early man, though intelligent, were little more than animals. Even Homo sapiens were little more than pack animals for hundreds of thousands of years until around 50,000 BC they suddenly started developing culture: ritualistic practices, settlements, the dawn of civilization essentially.

Well, I never meant it in a manner that God could sin -- but with that knowledge comes great cruelty and beauty. Therefore, God is the embodiment of both good and evil.

I don't think that's inherently true. One could have the knowledge of Good and Evil, and act evilly, in which case God is the embodiment of Good, solely, though with knowledge of evil. It would be man's nature that cause them to engage in both good and evil acts.





Now, speaking strictly hypothetically, it is conceivable, in some manners of thought, that morality of an action is not unique to the action in and of itself, but instead tied to said actions affect on the confluence of time. Thus, cruelty may actually be Good, if the purpose for which it is executed, serves the greater Good.

Per example, God allowing the Israelites to be conquered can be seen as Good, as it ultimately has the effect of returning the Israelites to their correct path, even if it can easily be regarded as cruel.


However, certain thought experiments question this, such as the "kill the innocent child to solve the worlds ills" ethical quandary.

[Dylar]

This is a key feature of the Orthodox method of interpretation. Suppose there is a passage in the Bible that has multiple possible interpretations, and let's call those interpretations A, B, and C.

Next, suppose that we have evidence from ancient Christian texts that, in early Christianity, some people interpreted the verse to mean A, and others said it means B, but no one said it means C.

Then we take it as axiomatic that C cannot possibly be the correct interpretation. Even if it looks the most obvious to us. It cannot be correct if it did not exist in early Christianity. The early Christians were much closer to Christ in terms of shared culture and a shared understanding of Scripture. If the idea of C was so alien to them that no one, not even a minority, bothered to argue in favour of C, then clearly there is something very wrong with C. And we defer to the wisdom of the early Christians.

Why ? The early christians were not allknowing and had a very limited understanding of the universe. Jesus otoh had a direct line to the divine. Why could he not have stated things the world simply was not ready for ?

Or,to use a different angle, what if science shows that certain passages are simply incorrect if taken literally instead of metaphorically - yet the literal interpretation is tradition ?

1. The early Christians are not all knowing, however, they interpreted Scripture through logic and reason.
2. Give an example of literal interpretation that can be disproven by science.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Why ? The early christians were not allknowing and had a very limited understanding of the universe. Jesus otoh had a direct line to the divine. Why could he not have stated things the world simply was not ready for ?

Or,to use a different angle, what if science shows that certain passages are simply incorrect if taken literally instead of metaphorically - yet the literal interpretation is tradition ?

1. The early Christians are not all knowing, however, they interpreted Scripture through logic and reason.
2. Give an example of literal interpretation that can be disproven by science.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."

[Dylar]

1. The early Christians are not all knowing, however, they interpreted Scripture through logic and reason.
2. Give an example of literal interpretation that can be disproven by science.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."

Wait... do we (Catholics) believe that's a literal interpretation? I was taught that a day for God could be millions, even billions, of years for us humans.

[The Alma Mater]

Why ? The early christians were not allknowing and had a very limited understanding of the universe. Jesus otoh had a direct line to the divine. Why could he not have stated things the world simply was not ready for ?

Or,to use a different angle, what if science shows that certain passages are simply incorrect if taken literally instead of metaphorically - yet the literal interpretation is tradition ?

1. The early Christians are not all knowing, however, they interpreted Scripture through logic and reason.
2. Give an example of literal interpretation that can be disproven by science.

The order of creation as proposed by Genesis.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."

Wait... do we (Catholics) believe that's a literal interpretation? I was taught that a day for God could be millions, even billions, of years for us humans.

No, only literalist Protestants do.

A literalist protestant usually is also a YEC. However, everyone who is not a YEC interprets it to mean whatever gaps in time (or an epoch in the history of creation), and not a literal day.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, I never meant it in a manner that God could sin -- but with that knowledge comes great cruelty and beauty. Therefore, God is the embodiment of both good and evil.

I don't get where you are getting at but maybe I am not understanding you well.

Do you mean to imply that because of the knowledge of good and evil that man knows, God also knows good and evil, and with such knowledge, God suffers and is humbled by the fact that he knows the hearts of men can be evil and cruel, and that this realization, that men after the fall are evil and cruel, makes God suffer?

[Dylar]

1. The early Christians are not all knowing, however, they interpreted Scripture through logic and reason.
2. Give an example of literal interpretation that can be disproven by science.

The order of creation as proposed by Genesis.

The order of creation isn't meant to be taken literally...

[The Alma Mater]

The order of creation as proposed by Genesis.

The order of creation isn't meant to be taken literally...

Did the early christians know that ?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The order of creation as proposed by Genesis.

The order of creation isn't meant to be taken literally...

Sure, but you did ask for a literal interpretation that could be disproved by science, specifically.

You never asked for a Catholic interpretation of the Bible taken literally that could be disproved by science.

[Constantinopolis]

I'll use "Eleanor Rigby" by the Beatles as an example. A classic, and probably my favorite Beatles song, with lyrics that relate to anyone who has ever been heartbroken or lonely. I could show this to someone from maybe two hundred years ago, and someone who understand the lyrics. But you can't ignore the time period it was written in, and the events around its creation. "Eleanor Rigby" was written in 1966 by Paul McCartney, one of over a thousand songs that he and John Lennon wrote, and it was a strange song for its time. It was one of the first major rock hits to use a full orchestra as a part of its instrumentation. It was also a mark in a personal turn for the Beatles' music, as it was maturing and becoming darker and more unconventional.

If you ignore these things, "Eleanor Rigby" loses its significance as a song. If you put it all together, however, you get a piece of history that is both timeless and a mark of a unique period is musical history. You can choose to ignore these things if you want, but the events and facts around the song still exist, just as the facts and events around the Book of Revelation's creation exist.

I agree completely, but I think that wasn't the best song to use as an example. I think the perfect example is this:

"We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel

Trying to understand the New Testament without Church Tradition is like trying to understand what this song means without knowing the history of the Cold War.

This is a key feature of the Orthodox method of interpretation. Suppose there is a passage in the Bible that has multiple possible interpretations, and let's call those interpretations A, B, and C.

Next, suppose that we have evidence from ancient Christian texts that, in early Christianity, some people interpreted the verse to mean A, and others said it means B, but no one said it means C.

Then we take it as axiomatic that C cannot possibly be the correct interpretation. Even if it looks the most obvious to us. It cannot be correct if it did not exist in early Christianity. The early Christians were much closer to Christ in terms of shared culture and a shared understanding of Scripture. If the idea of C was so alien to them that no one, not even a minority, bothered to argue in favour of C, then clearly there is something very wrong with C. And we defer to the wisdom of the early Christians.

Why ? The early christians were not allknowing and had a very limited understanding of the universe. Jesus otoh had a direct line to the divine. Why could he not have stated things the world simply was not ready for?

He could have done so, but that would have been a deliberately deceptive act on His part, so this possibility is definitely incompatible with Christianity. Think about it: If there was something that actually matters to salvation, and which Christ said in a way that the early Christians did not understand, that would mean He deliberately withheld salvation from at least some of them, by misleading them into believing wrong things. Why would He do such a thing?

On the other hand, when it comes to things that don't matter to salvation, sure, the early Christians could have been wrong about those.

Or,to use a different angle, what if science shows that certain passages are simply incorrect if taken literally instead of metaphorically - yet the literal interpretation is tradition?

There are very few passages where that would be a serious concern. Tradition focuses on the meaning of events first and foremost. It most cases it does not matter precisely how things happened, as long as the meaning of the event is preserved. Except for a small number of essential events (mainly the ones in the life of Christ, but also a few others), the entire rest of the Bible could be metaphorical and that would not make a big difference to our faith or to Holy Tradition.

But for a few things, if science were to show that they did not literally happen, then that would mean Christianity is simply false. For example, if Christ did not literally rise from the dead, then Christianity is false and you should not believe in it. However, short of inventing time travel, I don't know how "science" could ever show that.

The order of creation isn't meant to be taken literally...

Did the early christians know that ?

The order of creation is irrelevant for your salvation.

[Dylar]

The order of creation isn't meant to be taken literally...

Sure, but you did ask for a literal interpretation that could be disproved by science, specifically.

You never asked for a Catholic interpretation of the Bible taken literally that could be disproved by science.

Fair enough.

[Dylar]

The order of creation isn't meant to be taken literally...

Did the early christians know that ?

No, but you have to remember that in the time of the early Christians, heck, thousands of years before Christianity, society all around them believed that the Earth was about 1000 years old, it was flat, or dome shaped, and that the Sun, the stars, and the moon, orbited the Earth.

[The Alma Mater]

Did the early christians know that ?

No, but you have to remember that in the time of the early Christians, heck, thousands of years before Christianity, society all around them believed that the Earth was about 1000 years old, it was flat, or dome shaped, and that the Sun, the stars, and the moon, orbited the Earth.

Which was exactly the point.

[Dylar]

No, but you have to remember that in the time of the early Christians, heck, thousands of years before Christianity, society all around them believed that the Earth was about 1000 years old, it was flat, or dome shaped, and that the Sun, the stars, and the moon, orbited the Earth.

Which was exactly the point.

And what's the point you're trying to make here? That Christianity is wrong all because 2000 years ago the early Christians believed in a culturally acceptable belief that the Earth was made in 7 days, is flat, and is the center of the universe?

[Jamzmania]

Which was exactly the point.

And what's the point you're trying to make here? That Christianity is wrong all because 2000 years ago the early Christians believed in a culturally acceptable belief that the Earth was made in 7 days, is flat, and is the center of the universe?

Do we know that they believed this?

[Constantinopolis]

Which was exactly the point.

And what's the point you're trying to make here? That Christianity is wrong all because 2000 years ago the early Christians believed in a culturally acceptable belief that the Earth was made in 7 days, is flat, and is the center of the universe?

Point of order: The early Christians (or at least the early Christian theologians) did not believe the Earth was flat. It was common knowledge among educated people that the Earth was round, at least since Eratosthenes of Cyrene.

But the point Alma Mater is trying to make is an argument against what I said. And what I said was that the early Christians must have been correct on theological matters. Alma Mater's argument is incorrect because he is bringing up non-theological matters. I never said the early Christians must have been correct on everything.

No, but you have to remember that in the time of the early Christians, heck, thousands of years before Christianity, society all around them believed that the Earth was about 1000 years old, it was flat, or dome shaped, and that the Sun, the stars, and the moon, orbited the Earth.

Which was exactly the point.

But, as I said in reply to you earlier:

Why ? The early christians were not allknowing and had a very limited understanding of the universe. Jesus otoh had a direct line to the divine. Why could he not have stated things the world simply was not ready for?

He could have done so, but that would have been a deliberately deceptive act on His part, so this possibility is definitely incompatible with Christianity. Think about it: If there was something that actually matters to salvation, and which Christ said in a way that the early Christians did not understand, that would mean He deliberately withheld salvation from at least some of them, by misleading them into believing wrong things. Why would He do such a thing?

On the other hand, when it comes to things that don't matter to salvation, sure, the early Christians could have been wrong about those.

Or,to use a different angle, what if science shows that certain passages are simply incorrect if taken literally instead of metaphorically - yet the literal interpretation is tradition?

There are very few passages where that would be a serious concern. Tradition focuses on the meaning of events first and foremost. It most cases it does not matter precisely how things happened, as long as the meaning of the event is preserved. Except for a small number of essential events (mainly the ones in the life of Christ, but also a few others), the entire rest of the Bible could be metaphorical and that would not make a big difference to our faith or to Holy Tradition.

But for a few things, if science were to show that they did not literally happen, then that would mean Christianity is simply false. For example, if Christ did not literally rise from the dead, then Christianity is false and you should not believe in it. However, short of inventing time travel, I don't know how "science" could ever show that.

Did the early christians know that ?

The order of creation is irrelevant for your salvation.

[Dylar]

And what's the point you're trying to make here? That Christianity is wrong all because 2000 years ago the early Christians believed in a culturally acceptable belief that the Earth was made in 7 days, is flat, and is the center of the universe?

Point of order: The early Christians (or at least the early Christian theologians) did not believe the Earth was flat. It was common knowledge among educated people that the Earth was round, at least since Eratosthenes of Cyrene.

I stand corrected. Never heard of Eratosthenes, though...

And what's the point you're trying to make here? That Christianity is wrong all because 2000 years ago the early Christians believed in a culturally acceptable belief that the Earth was made in 7 days, is flat, and is the center of the universe?

Do we know that they believed this?

One can only assume. Especially since Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo both supported heliocentrism in the 16th-early 17th century and both were met with fierce resistance from astronomers and even the Church itself. Took us about 350 years, but we eventually accepted heliocentrism.

[Hakons]

Well, in our most recent problems.

Islamaphobia > Isolation > Resentment > Radicalisation > Terrorist Attack > Islamaphobia > ad infinitum.

We can't blame the West for terrorist attacks. Particular circumstances might load the gun, but it still takes a person to pull the trigger - and that is completely on them. The fault of terror is squared totally on the terrorizer. I find it hard to blame the recent attack on a Coptic Church on Islamaphobia, but I suspect you were theorizing about attacks in the West.

May the Lord defend and protect us, may we always turn the other cheek.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Point of order: The early Christians (or at least the early Christian theologians) did not believe the Earth was flat. It was common knowledge among educated people that the Earth was round, at least since Eratosthenes of Cyrene.

I stand corrected. Never heard of Eratosthenes, though...

Do we know that they believed this?

One can only assume. Especially since Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo both supported heliocentrism in the 16th-early 17th century and both were met with fierce resistance from astronomers and even the Church itself. Took us about 350 years, but we eventually accepted heliocentrism.

Actually the church was at first very accepting of the heliocentric theory. Copernicus died being a Catholic with good standing in the church.

Gallileo was tried for heresy, and the heliocentric model was banned after a backlash of Protestantism against heliocentrism influenced the Catholic church at the time to reject it as well, as far as I understand.

[ThePeacekeepers]

By our faith anything is possible unto us as the Lord God Yahweh has said through his son Yahshua the Christ.
John 14:13-14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Matthew 18:19-20
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

Matthew 21:21-22
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive

John 14:13-14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 15:5-7
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

John 15:14-16

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23-24
23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

James 1:5-6
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

1 John 3:18-22
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

I will address some of the other points when I have the time as it is getting very late and I must get up early.

Here's a few suggestions. A) If you're going to do the line spam, at least spoiler it. B) Maybe add more about your thoughts, like an original opinion, and not just regurgitate bible verses.

I did state my opinion and then showed it with strong doctrine to be the truth. Everything concerning the lord is to be proven with strong doctrine as I have done. 2 Timothy 4:2
Const said that were not able to do anything as the lord has said but instead that there is a limit to the lord's power that is given to us. Through strong doctrine I have shown that this idea is false since the case against it is to great. If he can show with strong doctrine that the lord did not mean that then I will believe it.
As to the spoliers I have trouble with them since my computer has been acting up for quite some time now and it is hard to even type at times but copy and paste still seems to work so when my computer is working better I will use them.

[Dylar]

I stand corrected. Never heard of Eratosthenes, though...

One can only assume. Especially since Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo both supported heliocentrism in the 16th-early 17th century and both were met with fierce resistance from astronomers and even the Church itself. Took us about 350 years, but we eventually accepted heliocentrism.

Actually the church was at first very accepting of the heliocentric theory. Copernicus died being a Catholic with good standing in the church.

Gallileo was tried for heresy, and the heliocentric model was banned after a backlash of Protestantism against heliocentrism influenced the Catholic church at the time to reject it as well, as far as I understand.

Guess I need to brush up on my history a bit. Though, I always thought the Catholic Church was for geocentrism until 1850-whatever...stupid public school not giving enough information about the astronomers...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I stand corrected. Never heard of Eratosthenes, though...

One can only assume. Especially since Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo both supported heliocentrism in the 16th-early 17th century and both were met with fierce resistance from astronomers and even the Church itself. Took us about 350 years, but we eventually accepted heliocentrism.

Actually the church was at first very accepting of the heliocentric theory. Copernicus died being a Catholic with good standing in the church.

Gallileo was tried for heresy, and the heliocentric model was banned after a backlash of Protestantism against heliocentrism influenced the Catholic church at the time to reject it as well, as far as I understand.

It was a conflux of a number of factors, scientific religious and political.

The Protestants denounced heliocentrism out right, but to say that they caused the church to later reject it isn't really accurate. As far as the Church thought, anything the Protestants said was the work of the Devil anyway.

The scientific conflict was of what was perceived to be a very legitimate rebuttal to the heliocentric model, with Tycho's Geo-heliocentric model, where the moon and the sun revolve around the Earth, but then the other celestial bodies revolve around the Sun. The Church never actually took an official position while Capernicus was alive, though they encouraged him to publish and pursue his works. So by the time Tycho's came along, it was seen as an equally viable theory about an unsolved question rather than a challenge to church sanctioned teaching.

The religious influence that led to the ban of Capernicus's work came out of the Inquisition. The "hardline" Dominicans had long rejected the heliocentric model. As they came into prominence during the inquisition, they flexed that muscle against this long standing thorn in their side. They used the Inquisition courts and Galileo as a way to get it banned as reinterprting the Bible. Ironically, even though the Protestants agreed with the Dominicans on the subject, the Dominicans claimed it was too close to Protestantism to get it banned.

Galileo was given a pass so long as he stopped advocating Heliocentrism, largely because of his strong relationship with Pope Urban VIII. He did this for 16 years until he was asked to write a book on the subject by Pope Urban VIII. Unfortunately Galileo didn't do himself any favors by alienating himself from the the Pope, hislong time supporter and benefactor, by essentially mocking the Pope in the book. However, even then his connections in the church were sympathetic, and he was sentenced to "house arrest" on the Arch-Bishop of Siena's estate, and leter his home villa. They really put the screws to that one.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Here's a few suggestions. A) If you're going to do the line spam, at least spoiler it. B) Maybe add more about your thoughts, like an original opinion, and not just regurgitate bible verses.

I did state my opinion and then showed it with strong doctrineto be the truth. Everything concerning the lord is to be proven with strong doctrine as I have done. 2 Timothy 4:2
Const said that were not able to do anything as the lord has said but instead that there is a limit to the lord's power that is given to us. Through strong doctrine I have shown that this idea is false since the case against it is to great. If he can show with strong doctrine that the lord did not mean that then I will believe it.
As to the spoliers I have trouble with them since my computer has been acting up for quite some time now and it is hard to even type at times but copy and paste still seems to work so when my computer is working better I will use them.