Faith

[dyrl]

An EXCELLENT subject.

I think it's impossible to "reject" something that doesn't exist; and I think that the lack of faith in the existence of the Devil is almost as alarming as the growing lack of faith in God.

Now - the real question is; how exactly does the Devil punish people in Hell? Personally, I find C.S. Lewis' vision most compelling: Lewis describes Hell as the place where you continue your earthly existence - eternally. This might even sound appealing; but it is not - for ultimately, if Christianity is true, then the greatest happiness is to be found with God; therefore to continue forever in your Earthly existence is to forever be condemned to not knowing God - and no other punishment could really be greater.

It is therefore unnecessary and superstisious to imagine the Devil as this fellow who is cooking us in a kettle. It is enough that the Devil simply keeps us from God; that is punishment enough.

Now - on to this subject of Good and Evil.

If you read Genesis carefully, you will notice that God warns Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge lest "you become like Gods."

Later, Satan tempts Eve saying that if she eats of the Tree of Knowledge then she will "become like a god."

Notice then, that God and the Devil AGREE with regard to the Nature of Man: Original Sin - only for the Devil, this is not "sin" (not "evil") - it is actually good - it is good because in eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Mankind shed its' innocence and embarked on the path towards godhood (or at least towards what the Devil envies in God: Power, Infinite Life, Infite Wisdom etc etc).

Another way to say it is as follows:

God is overflowing, while the Devil is negation. Good is positive while evil is negative.

Yet - very roughly and crudely speaking - to posit Something is the equivalent of negating Nothing, which in turn means that positing entails negating the negative in order for the positive to reign.

Conversely, the Devil, as negation, is the negation of the Positive. But insofar as negating is an ACTING UPON something (acting upon the positive), it also entails a POSITIVE (action is, after all, a positive feature insofar as a doing of something is not a negative act (not doing)).

This in turn means that the Devil, in order to negate, must act, that is to say, there is a positive element in negation.

What results then is the notion that God and the Devil ARE indeed ONE absolute made manifest in a dialectic of oppositions.

This is most manifest in the story of Job, where God and the Devil CLEARLY come to a mutual understanding that they should like to play a little trick on Job to test his faith. This mutual understanding can be seen as a practical example of the theoretical dialectical nature of God and the Devil.

Or we can go with the horns.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

The adbot devil is trying to tempt us with a range of women's shoes.

Now - the real question is; how exactly does the Devil punish people in Hell? Personally, I find C.S. Lewis' vision most compelling: Lewis describes Hell as the place where you continue your earthly existence - eternally. This might even sound appealing; but it is not - for ultimately, if Christianity is true, then the greatest happiness is to be found with God; therefore to continue forever in your Earthly existence is to forever be condemned to not knowing God - and no other punishment could really be greater.

The great definitive literary description of Hell is of course that in Dante's Inferno:



The first circle (Limbo) is not far from what you describe, Pete - a perfectly tolerable life goes on there for people who didn't worship God merely out of ignorance. Their only suffering is the knowledge that they won't meet God in Heaven. In some literary traditions Jesus cleared this circle out and saved its occupants in the three days between being crucified and rising from the dead.

According to Dante, the very bottom pit of Hell has a three-faced Satan eternally devouring Judas and the two principal traitors involved in the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Dante populates the other circles of Hell with various political figures he doesn't like based on the seriousness of their crimes (in his eyes).

Not sure which circle Ralph's library falls into.

Those who repent before dying, of course, don't go to Hell, but rather to Purgatory, where they work off their crimes plodding uphill before being allowed into Heaven:



This is all literary rather than religious dogma, of course, but The Divine Comedy is, like Paradise Lost, a poetic masterpiece.

Martin

[dyrl]

I always enjoyed the first circle, because I think (if I recall correctly) that that's where Dante placed folks like Aristotle ...

Which of course brings up another fundamental question:

How come folks supposedly are denied Heaven just because they happened to be born BC?

Do all poor souls born BC have to end up in Hell and make their way through purgatory just because they had no means of knowing Christ?

This question actually goes also for the vast majority of folks born AD - remember; no internet back then, so Christian gospel tended to spread super slowly...

This, for me, is one of the most interesting questions - aside from the question of whether, if there is sentient life in the cosmos beyond earth - then do those sentient beings NOT know God, or could it be that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of "Jesuses" - that is - God took up embodied form on numerous planets in order to reveal himself to numerous beings?

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Oct 3, 2008 6:40:36 GMT dyrl said:

I always enjoyed the first circle, because I think (if I recall correctly) that that's where Dante placed folks like Aristotle ...

Which of course brings up another fundamental question:

How come folks supposedly are denied Heaven just because they happened to be born BC?

Because (in the tradition) Eve took the forbidden fruit and got humanity kicked out of Heaven - that's how come - Paradise Lost.

Do all poor souls born BC have to end up in Hell and make their way through purgatory just because they had no means of knowing Christ?

No, it was even worse - people in Hell were stuck there forever, and (I think) everyone ended up there - or in Limbo at least - because no-one could know Christ until He came to Earth. I think the idea was that His coming to Earth and dying for our sins undid the damage done by Eve and opened the possibility for humans getting to Heaven, denied to them since the Fall. And, as I said, He went down to Hell after being crucified, kicked ass, and freed all those ignorant souls stuck in Limbo.

All literary tradition, mind you. But it's a good story.

This, for me, is one of the most interesting questions - aside from the question of whether, if there is sentient life in the cosmos beyond earth - then do those sentient beings NOT know God, or could it be that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of "Jesuses" - that is - God took up embodied form on numerous planets in order to reveal himself to numerous beings?

I like to think that's the case - as I believe Aslan said in the Narnia books, different people know him by different names and in different forms. This allows for the possibility that there is some truth (as well as some misinformation) in all religions.

And of course Jesus' own words imply that those who do His will (i.e. love their neighbour) are preferred to those who worship Him through words but not through their actions. And "What you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me." His words carried the implication that good non-believers went to Heaven but hypocritical believers did not. However, later writers made belief more important than goodness, which is a shame, and that's an understatement.

Martin

[karla]

even in death we will be catagorized, how depressing.

And maybe the devil doesn't see what he does as evil, only we do

[Hero]

I got myself ordained today.

Being ordained RULES!

[The Doctor]

Congratulations.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

Congratulations Ken!

Andy

[legios]

Congratulations to you Ken!

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Congratulations, Ken - what have you been ordained?

Martin

[Shockprowl]

Congrats Ken!

Thanks to Martin and Dyrl for some very interesting ideas!

I don't have anything else to add myself at the mo 'cos I'm too distracted trying to stop the Child eating one of her shoes.

[kayevcee]

Congratulations, Ken! Hope you can still find time for the wrestling!

-Nick

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Ho hum, mixed news day today.

On the annoying side, the Pope's views on homosexuality - which happily have never been repeated in the sermons of parish priests in the Sunday Masses I have attended - make the headlines again. It is a shame that when Jesus was such a radical, the Vatican remains so conservative. (Though I partially agree with them up to a point on some issues, such as stronger abortion laws and the benefits of a child having both a good father and a good mother.) And it could be considered progress that he suggests that the environment may be just as important as these issues. "He explained that defending God's creation was not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction." Not so long ago it would have been only the latter. But judging from the two Catholic journalists who have just been speaking on Radio 4, most Catholics will either be expressing disappointment in the content of his speech, or else claiming the media have misrepresented his words. Sigh.

On the uplifting side, Richard Dawkins has just been on the radio emphasising his love of religious Christmas carols and how he wishes everyone a Merry Christmas on 25 Dec.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

You would think with the resources the Vatican has, there would be some PR folks working for them and a few people looking at the speeches before the Pope decides to go out on a balcony and decide to do his best to keep alienating the catholic church for mainstream society.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Apparently he still doesn't realise that one single reference on anything to do with sex gets more media attention than whole speeches on poverty and world peace. It's sad that it's the case, but there's no excuse for not realising it by now.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

Unless he does realise. Someone in the vatican is bound to have been able to tell him that. The possibility is he is perfectly aware of what his remarks would do in terms of media reaction and did it anyway. Given that, as you've said the vatican is so conservative - it might have been done in response to the more liberal world view which isn't exactly sympatico with the vatican's rigid stance on matters.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Dec 23, 2008 21:07:07 GMT Andy Turnbull said:

Unless he does realise. Someone in the vatican is bound to have been able to tell him that. The possibility is he is perfectly aware of what his remarks would do in terms of media reaction and did it anyway. Given that, as you've said the vatican is so conservative - it might have been done in response to the more liberal world view which isn't exactly sympatico with the vatican's rigid stance on matters.

Unsurprisingly (and not unwelcome to me), the only bits of the Pope's speech that filtered down to be preached in the church I happened to be in at the time (in Bristol) via a letter read out from the Bishop, are the bits about protecting the environment.

In other news, Anglican bishops attack the morality of Labour policies. Do Hubbers consider such interventions by religious leaders helpful, unhelpful or irrelevant in the 21st Century?

Martin

[The Doctor]

They have as much right to express their opinions as anyone else.

-Ralph

[Hero]

Exactley. There is always going to be dissagreement towards homosexuality no matter what, and there should'nt be a sensative uproar every time someone speaks against it.

I don't agree with homosexuality or any 'modern' spin on it myself, but that does'nt mean I hate gay people or "want them to die" (cos I do like gays too!) and I should be made to feel the villain for it.

===KEN

[Andy Turnbull]

Dec 28, 2008 14:17:27 GMT Hero said:

Exactley. There is always going to be dissagreement towards homosexuality no matter what, and there should'nt be a sensative uproar every time someone speaks against it.

I have to disagree with you there Ken.

I think anyone, especially someone in a position of authority who is speaking out against one group or another who practice something which does not fall within their belief system but isn't harming anyone or impacting directly on them deserves to be shouted down. Given that most religions are based on a belief system which worships a kind, loving figurehead turning around and decrying others for practising what they do/believe is whatever it is seems to be against the spirit of religion.

At the end of the day I really couldn't care who someone loves or worships or doesn't. So long as it's not illegal or harmful then what does it matter.

Wouldn't it be better to be more concerned about what you enjoy, love in your own life/belief/value systems than to pay attention to the things in others that you don't agree with?

Andy

[Hero]

I have to disagree with you there Ken.

I think anyone, especially someone in a position of authority who is speaking out against one group or another who practice something which does not fall within their belief system but isn't harming anyone or impacting directly on them deserves to be shouted down.

Wouldn't it be better to be more concerned about what you enjoy, love in your own life/belief/value systems than to pay attention to the things in others that you don't agree with?

Hey that's cool Andy, your're welcome to agree/disagree with whatever.

I did'nt mean the pope in general, but it seems like the moment homosexuality is disagreed with by anyone - there will very likely people saying the cliche of 'homophobe this' and 'homophobe that' as if the person who disagrees is a hate criminal.

Your last sentence (the best of the bunch) is almost like relating to someone judging the speck in someone else eye rather than the plank in anothers. I did'nt claim to be a perfect person myself either but I should'nt feel like treading on egg shells for existing on this world as a conservative christian.

===KEN

[karla]

Dec 28, 2008 18:18:12 GMT Andy Turnbull said:

At the end of the day I really couldn't care who someone loves or worships or doesn't. So long as it's not illegal or harmful then what does it matter.

DAH!! so no dead body love then?

Well the men at the top of the Vatican are getting old, everything will start to work funny and it'll be their time soon so I wouldn't worry about it too much

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Superb new BBC2 series 'Around the World in 80 Faiths' started tonight, in which a Christian Minister with an enthusiasm for all religions travels around the world experiencing 80 religions other than the big six, some of them now almost extinguished. Extremely insightful commentary, reflecting on how Christianity and other dominant religions have subsumed or replaced indigenous beliefs. The sadness he felt at the vestigial custom of baby-smoking by Christian aborigines who have completely forgotten its original meaning due to having been converted by missionaries is particularly poignant, as are the ancestor worship funerals that take 20 years in preparation. But it's uplifting that where once missionaries would have tried to extinguish all existing religions, this guy respects and revels in them. Well, some of them.

Recommend anyone with an interest in religions catch it on iPlayer.

Martin

[Hero]

Sounds like a blast. I'll try and get round to seeing it.

[Andy Turnbull]

Iplayer link

Andy

[Andy Turnbull]

Great documentary, I look forward to future installments.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Episode 2 was top telly. It covered faiths of the far east. Apart from the first one or two where blokes got drunk and had fights, I have a lot of time for most of these. Peter Owen-Jones made the striking point that far eastern religions aren't as mutually exclusive as the monotheistic western ones tend to be, but often allow people to profess more than one at the same time. This tolerance between faiths was of course in stark contrast to the secular Communist Chinese official minders ensuring that he missed seeing a big Tibetan Buddhist festival, and instructing the people who he was interviewing about their religion what they should say to him.

Should be on iPlayer now.

Next week... Africa.

In other news, finished The Dalai Lama's Book of Transformation, which filled me with inner calm and tranquility, I have a nice Folio Society edition of Confucius's Analects on order for March, and if I remember this coming Wednesday I shall attend an interdenominational Taize service at a church just round the corner.

But for now, back to the world.

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

North America tonight, from Mormons to Navajo. Although it is the most Christian continent Rev. Peter Owen Jones has visited so far, it's the one he seems least comfortable in. Perhaps it has something to do with his statement that nearly half of all Americans have switched their faith at one time or another, and his feeling that although very religious, it doesn't feel all that spiritual.

Another fascinating watch, thoroughly recommended.

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Did Darwin kill God?

At last, a man who reflects my beliefs rather than preferring to watch the loonies on either extreme fight it out. And unlike the programmes produced by the extremists, he gives the extremists on both sides a chance to have their say, respectfully, without interrupting or talking over them. Watch this on iPlayer after 9pm.

The last ten minutes, on memes, are particularly thought-provoking.

There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fuelled in part by Richard Dawkins' publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

He travels to the Middle East where he shows that from the very outset, Christianity warned against literal readings of the biblical story of creation. In Britain, he reveals that, at the time, Darwin's theory of evolution was welcomed by the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Instead, he argues that the conflict between Darwin and God was manufactured by American creationists in the 20th century for reasons that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with politics and morality.

Finally, he comes face to face with some of the most eminent evolutionary biologists, geneticists and philosophers of our time to examine whether the very latest advances in evolutionary theory do in fact kill God.

Note from Exec Producer, Jean Claude Bragard:
This programme, part of the BBC’s Darwin Season, came from the realisation that it would touch on issues raised by Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion'. The publishing phenomenon has fuelled a widespread perception that the theory of evolution makes belief in God redundant, even perhaps perverse. But how compelling was that argument? It was clear that many Christians have easily been able to reconcile their belief in God with the theory of evolution. How was this possible? This was the question we wanted to explore and so we invited Dr Conor Cunningham, a Christian but also an eminent philosopher and theologian from the Centre of Theology and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham, to show how it was possible to believe in Darwin and God. Cunningham has just completed a book 'Evolution: Darwin's Pious Idea' to be published in the autumn, so he was ideally placed to explore this question. His argument is that we have been witnessing an unnecessary cultural war between religion and evolution that is damaging to both religion and science. Cunningham reveals that since the early days, mainstream Christianity’s view of God and Creation has not been literal. The idea of reading the Book of Genesis literally is essentially a 20th century American phenomenon that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with the morality and politics of the time.

Jean Claude Bragard
Executive Producer

Martin

[Fortmax2020]

Watched this the other day and agree with Martin - nice to finally see something a bit more balanced and well thought out on our screens. Although he did seem to do a lot of pointless driving shots throughout!