Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Turelisa-]

Okay, but if that struggle isn't necessarily good, then why do you object so strongly to removing those barriers to achieving our goals?

I don't object to it. I just think that removing those barriers will lead to a much better society, not a perfect one.

I'm not saying you're literally a conservative, in fact I used that as an analogy precisely because I think there's a cognitive dissonance in being a progressive and being opposed to the idea of the World to Come, because progressives imo want to work towards a better world with less suffering, which is why I find it strange that someone with that position would reject the idea of a world that is literally perfect and devoid entirely of suffering.

I want less suffering. I am a realist, though, and know it will never go away. The best we can do is minimise it. I reject the perfect paradise not necessarily in theory, even if I find such an idea dull, but because it is virtually impossible. In that regard, I am much more of a Scientific Socialist than a Utopian one.

I don't think you're literally a conservative, but I think the arguments you are using to reject the World to Come are, fundamentally, identical or at least analogous to those that a conservative would use to reject, say, socialism.

The arguments conservative use to reject socialism usually stem from fear of change, as well as socialism's attempts in the 20th century. In actuality, I support socialism and - to an extent - communism as a long term goal, not as a Heaven on Earth but a better system than we have now.

I don't reject the World to Come. I embrace it. What I don't embrace is a utopia, certainly not one motivated by spiritual or religious doctrine.

A proper theocracy is not the establishment of something like Heaven on earth. It's a state where there is a concerted effort to sanctify its citizens through every means at its disposal in order to prepare them for the Kingdom come.

[Suriyanakhon]

happens in the real world, and hardly sounds like a reason to reject a literal paradise out of some weird cult of individuality that's just the product of cultural conditioning.

You can reject paradise and the chaos vs. order dichotomy. I gotta admit that this weird cult you speak of is a thing.

You can, but the logic is still based on some strange hatred for order and belief that individuals can “choose their own way” (a vague cliche that is never explained) free from external factors which is somehow preferable to a world where people don't experience pain and death.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

You can reject paradise and the chaos vs. order dichotomy. I gotta admit that this weird cult you speak of is a thing.

You can, but the logic is still based on some strange hatred for order and belief that individuals can “choose their own way” (a vague cliche that is never explained) free from external factors which is somehow preferable to a world where people don't experience pain and death.

I am a Marxist so I don't think anyone is free from any external factors relevant to their upbringing and circumstance.

I do not think it is preferable but, from my perspective, my hands are tied. I would rather a world without pain or death. I think that is impossible, so the best I can do is minimise pain and ensure I do all I want and need to do before I die.

Maybe the confusion here is that I accept that a paradise is unattainable. I also am too much of a cynical bastard to invest in what ifs and what abouts about some great gig in the sky, when my concern is this world, the material world, the world I care about.

I honestly find myself stumped by hypotheticals because I am too literal minded.

[Lost Memories]

Why was Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge a bad thing? My reading of it is that obtaining knowledge is somehow a sin, though that is my interpretation. I always thought Satan wasn't being particularly nefarious.

Maybe it could help, to have a bit of context about what happened before eden, and before the creation of the world, to understand better the value of the events happening during genesis, in eden. (in christian lore, obviously)
I'm not sure how accurate is my understanding of it (anyone else feel free to correct), but here:

Before God created the world, he was experimenting with creating spirits, which is when the angels were created.
Angels being spirits, are eternal, but were also created to have free will, which is to be able to decide one own route(=next actions) indipendently from the will of God. Free will is the requisite for having an independent will. And God created his angels to be independent.
One of the angels created by God sort of broke, and had his free will get stuck on a faulty option. That defective angel was Satan, and the faulty option he got stuck on was believing he could be greater than the God who created him. Which belief is something pretty stupid on the cosmological sense, it goes against the rules of existence, which God manages, it's like saying a car can produce fuel for itself, or saying that by walking backward gravity gets reversed too. But aside the nonsense, the belief of Satan was an attack on the authority of God.
Satan managed to corrupt some other angels with his faulty belief, and tried to start a revolt, before he and the other corrupted angels were kicked out. (here may come the observation of, why didn't God erase them? instead of just kicking them out? only God knows)
After Satan was kicked out, God shared his divine plan with those angels who resisted satan and didn't get corrupted, so that the angels loyal to God would not be left out.

Then comes God creating the material world.
This time God wanted to create again some indipendent beings, humans, but (this is my take) after the odd outcome with satan, God wanted to move more carefully, so he progressed in steps.
Steps: create a being, give it free will, give it eternal life (but this piece can be removed in case of trouble), let them gain experience to control their free will without losing control of it, finally give them knowledge once they are ready for it.
Humans were created, they had free will, they had access to the tree of life. Then God ordered them to don't eat from the tree of good and evil.
Then comes satan again, infiltrating inside eden, and tempting Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil before it was time (before God allowed them), Eve disobeyed the order from God and ate from the tree of good and evil. Then propagated her sin to Adam, making him disobey God too.
What followed, was God removing access to eternal life from humans, telling Adam he would have to live by working, and Eve would have to bear children, this is just the description of how life goes without eternal life. Why God removed eternal life from humans? My take is damage control, otherwise the original sin would have been enhanced by having an eternal life, like Satan is eternally faulty.

Like with the first rebellion of satan, the issue with Eve isn't either the tree of knowledge or the belief of being greater than God, the issue is not obeying the orders from God. The issue is misusing free will, to make stupid decisions which are either nonsensical or self-damaging.

Why did God just give an order about not eating from the tree of knowledge instead of making the tree not accessible? Or why did God allow satan to infiltrate eden? (assuming God allowed it, instead of satan just slipping in without getting noticed)
Because the choice of Eve wasn't predetermined, she had free will (Adam also had free will), God doesn't know what beings with free will are going to do, it's by God's own design, it was always possible Eve would have rejected the temptation/corruption of satan, maybe God was even wishing for that outcome, it would have been pretty amazing for a new creation to reject the corruption from an older creation, but it didn't go like that.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

So God didn't know? How could he not know? He's God.

[Lost Memories]

Free will can only exist by God making a step back and allowing things to happen without his direct influence.

Albeit this is my interpretation of it, because of free will, either God knows but doesn't/can't intervene into "free will decisions", or God doesn't even look into "free will decisions" (God wouldn't interfere even if he knew the thought process, so maybe God doesn't even look into it).

[Turelisa-]

Because the choice of Eve wasn't predetermined, she had free will (Adam also had free will), God doesn't know what beings with free will are going to do, it's by God's own design, it was always possible Eve would have rejected the temptation/corruption of satan, maybe God was even wishing for that outcome, it would have been pretty amazing for a new creation to reject the corruption from an older creation, but it didn't go like that.

God knew Adam and Eve would disobey Him, and act according to the natural depravity which His imperfect creations have. If He believed otherwise, He must have been terribly naive, and God isn't capable of such a flaw. The fall of Man was predestined, and His incarnation in Jesus, the perfect man, and his redeeming death and resurrection, were part of God's design, too, to assist those people who accept Him to salvation.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

God knew Adam and Eve would disobey Him, and act according to the natural depravity which His imperfect creations have.

Why did he make people in order to screw them over? Why did he not have the ability to make them perfect?

If He believed otherwise, He must have been terribly naive, and God isn't capable of such a flaw.

God is perfect but not perfect enough to stop Eve being tempted.

The fall of Man was predestined, and His incarnation in Jesus, the perfect man, and his redeeming death and resurrection, were part of God's design, too, to assist those people who accept Him to salvation.

Predestined by who? God?

[Tarsonis]

He deprived all of creation of eternal life and closeness with God, for reasons that basically amount to pettiness.

Why was that a bad thing? I interpreted the tempting of Eve to be the promise of knowledge and enlightenment. God's reaction seemed pretty drastic, i.e. original sin.

God did not create original sin. Original sin is a result of the drastic changes cause by the opening of Adam and Eve's eyes.

[Tarsonis]

Because the choice of Eve wasn't predetermined, she had free will (Adam also had free will), God doesn't know what beings with free will are going to do, it's by God's own design, it was always possible Eve would have rejected the temptation/corruption of satan, maybe God was even wishing for that outcome, it would have been pretty amazing for a new creation to reject the corruption from an older creation, but it didn't go like that.

God knew Adam and Eve would disobey Him, and act according to the natural depravity which His imperfect creations have. If He believed otherwise, He must have been terribly naive, and God isn't capable of such a flaw. The fall of Man was predestined, and His incarnation in Jesus, the perfect man, and his redeeming death and resurrection, were part of God's design, too, to assist those people who accept Him to salvation.

except if they hadn't fallen, they wouldn't need to be saved. This is called hero syndrome, putting people at risk in order to save them, and is a form of psychopathy.

The calvinist view if God really is a blasphemous one.

[Tarsonis]

I don't object to it. I just think that removing those barriers will lead to a much better society, not a perfect one.



I want less suffering. I am a realist, though, and know it will never go away. The best we can do is minimise it. I reject the perfect paradise not necessarily in theory, even if I find such an idea dull, but because it is virtually impossible. In that regard, I am much more of a Scientific Socialist than a Utopian one.



The arguments conservative use to reject socialism usually stem from fear of change, as well as socialism's attempts in the 20th century. In actuality, I support socialism and - to an extent - communism as a long term goal, not as a Heaven on Earth but a better system than we have now.

I don't reject the World to Come. I embrace it. What I don't embrace is a utopia, certainly not one motivated by spiritual or religious doctrine.

A proper theocracy is not the establishment of something like Heaven on earth. It's a state where there is a concerted effort to sanctify its citizens through every means at its disposal in order to prepare them for the Kingdom come.

Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.

At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Why was that a bad thing? I interpreted the tempting of Eve to be the promise of knowledge and enlightenment. God's reaction seemed pretty drastic, i.e. original sin.

God did not create original sin. Original sin is a result of the drastic changes cause by the opening of Adam and Eve's eyes.

Why was that sin though?

[Tarsonis]

God did not create original sin. Original sin is a result of the drastic changes cause by the opening of Adam and Eve's eyes.

Why was that sin though?

Original sin is not a "sin" per se, it's just a term we use for the wounded nature cause by eating the fruit. if we accept that the story is literally true, then the sin was simple disobedience. God told them not to, and they did anyway.


But where I break with most Christians is that, is the disobedience was minor and not really the issue at hand.

[Tarsonis]

Theoretically, it was still up to us to make those choices. There may have been things Satan introduced to us that we never acted upon.

Like they say, who shot the Kennedys? It was you and me. The idea of Satan removes agency and responsibility from mankind's capacity for violence and cruelty.

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

Science would yell us otherwise. This strikes me as a human idea of perfection.

[Turelisa-]

A proper theocracy is not the establishment of something like Heaven on earth. It's a state where there is a concerted effort to sanctify its citizens through every means at its disposal in order to prepare them for the Kingdom come.

Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.

At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

[Punished UMN]

Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.

At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, you are, in effect, guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

[Tarsonis]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, you are, in effect, guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

Agreed.

[Turelisa-]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, you are, in effect, guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

'X is Y 'isn't really a counterargument, is it? The least you could do is quote a catechism or two.

I find it ironic and hilarious when a Catholic calls Calvinism 'satanic'. Catholicism began as a vehicle for Constantine's domestic and foreign policies of domination. A warmonging Roman emperor who invented an account of a vision of a pagan symbol and a command from the Christian God to conquer with it, to justify his hijacking of Christianity to direct it in the way which he saw fit - to invade, to enslave, andto commit rapine.

[Tarsonis]

Yes, once they've repented, put them to death to save them from themselves.

At least we Catholics have the integrity to admit we were wrong for this line of thinking.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

mmm, no. None of that is true, especially not your perverted interpretation of 1 Corinthian 5 which calls for excommunication of the faithless to leave them for God's judgment. Excommunication is social expulsion, not separating them from life.

[Tarsonis]

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

'X is Y 'isn't really a counterargument, is it? The least you could do is quote a catechism or two.

Pearls before swine comes to mind. Anyone who thinks killing a person is somehow for their own good, really doesn't seem capable of embracing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Punished UMN]

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

'X is Y 'isn't really a counterargument, is it? The least you could do is quote a catechism or two.

I mean, I don't know what catechism you'll accept when your starting premise is that the Holy Spirit and Christ's resurrection lacks salvific power.

[Suriyanakhon]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

Doesn't this undermine most of the core concepts of Christiandom, that God can forgive all sins and sent his incarnated form to die for everyone?

[Tarsonis]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

Doesn't this undermine most of the core concepts of Christiandom, that God can forgive all sins and sent his incarnated form to die for everyone?

*Checks notes* Yes, explicitly.

[Turelisa-]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

mmm, no. None of that is true, especially not your perverted interpretation of 1 Corinthian 5 which calls for excommunication of the faithless to leave them for God's judgment. Excommunication is social expulsion, not separating them from life.

I haven't said the faithless should be executed. Not all faithless commit evil. I said so in this quoted post. The faithless must be excommunicated.

[Old Tyrannia]

Theologically, there wasn't a capacity for violence and cruelty before Satan explained them to us. There wasn't even a capacity for dying, or for suffering of any kind, until Satan introduced blemish to what was perfect.

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

Based on his depiction in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Satan would appear to agree.

Before time was, by some degree which I could never make out, I was predestined 'to deny' and yet I am genuinely good-hearted and not at all inclined to negation. 'No, you must go and deny, without denial there's no criticism and what would a journal be without a column of criticism?' Without criticism it would be nothing but one 'hosannah.' But nothing but hosannah is not enough for life, the hosannah must be tried in the crucible of doubt and so on... Without suffering, what would be be the pleasure of [life]? It would be transformed into an endless church service; it would be holy, but tedious.

Interestingly enough, Dostoevsky's Devil also seemed to believe that he would be redeemed in the end:

I know that at the end of all things I shall be reconciled. I, too, shall walk my quadrillion [kilometres] and learn the secret. But till that happens I am sulking and fulfil my destiny though it's against the grain- that is, to ruin thousands for the sake of saving one.

Of course, neither of theses quotes can be taken at face value as reflecting Dostoevsky's own opinions- firstly, the speaker is the Devil himself, i.e. the Prince of Lies. Secondly, it may not even be the Devil but simply a manifestation of Ivan Karamazov's imagination; it depends on the interpretation of the reader. There's a third possibility raised by Ivan, too- that it might a devil, but not the Devil. Whatever the case, I found it interesting that Esheaun Stroakuss' expressed thoughts echo those of Dostoevsky's version of Satan. Are you secretly the Devil, Esheaun?

If Satan did not enter the picture, then we would have just been perfect. Tbh that sounds really boring.

I don't understand this mindset, really, I don't. What kind of person goes "Humanity could be perfect, almost god-like beings that don't suffer or die, and who all bear perfect love for one-another, but that sounds boring, better throw in a few thousand wars and genocides and maybe a handful of deadly diseases and death by old age!"

I think you should be careful with this line of reasoning. You are essentially making the "problem of evil" argument but directed against the Devil rather than God, which is problematic because ultimately God permits everything that happens, including the actions of the Devil. If the Fall was such an unmitigated catastrophe, why would God permit it to happen? You can't say that He didn't foresee it, or that He couldn't have prevented it; not without abandoning the classical understanding of God as being both omnipotent and omniscient. The problem of evil is a serious philosophical objection to theism, but we shouldn't be tempted to counter it by passing blame for all the world's ills onto the Devil, because unless you place limits on God's power and wisdom then the buck, as it were, still stops with Him. I think we should consider the position that suffering may serve a greater purpose. Dostoevsky's Devil has a point- if it were all one "hosannah," what would be the point of everything? Is the taste of Heaven not sweeter for all our earthly sufferings?

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, you are, in effect, guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

This is just awful theology. Calvinism truly is Satanic.

I am not saying that I don't have significant theological objections to Calvinism myself, but taking Turelisa as a standard example of Calvinism is a bit like taking Leonard Feeney as the standard by which you judge Catholic theology in general. The position Turelisa is taking represents a particularly strict and unforgiving interpretation of Reformed theology and would not necessarily meet with the approval of most self-described Reformed Christians. Additionally, I think condemning a large swathe of fellow Christians as "satanic" is uncalled for. It's not as if Calvinists are sacrificing infants to Moloch.