Where was Christ between crucifixion and resurrection?
Creepy Catholic Marti is creepy.
I think it's important - and something that today's Christians do not hear about a lot - what Jesus was doing on the Holy Saturday. I think it is also mystically and psychologically important, and shows that early Christians understood a lot more than one could think.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 12:42:35 PM
Where was Christ between crucifixion and resurrection?
Are you talking about the Harrowing?
Netflix and chill?
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2016, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 12:42:35 PM
Where was Christ between crucifixion and resurrection?
Are you talking about the Harrowing?
Yup. :thumbsup:
I have to wonder if that's something that non-Catholics are taught. I'll have to ask some of the locals.
Even for Catholics I think it is a pretty obscure reference - definitely not something that is frequently mentioned.
Lutheran's believe it in some fashion or another. I remember that.
Always struck me as a bit melodramatic.
I had a good few Catholic resurrection masses rammed down my throat as a kid and it was never alluded to.
Seems a bit problematic on the whole allowing non-believers into heaven bit. Why was that only a one time deal? Surely there were lots of other people who were still living after Christ's death who never even had the chance to be Christians as it was still an unknown creed to them.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 01:10:51 PM
Even for Catholics I think it is a pretty obscure reference - definitely not something that is frequently mentioned.
Other than in the Apostles Creed. "He descended into the dead"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2016, 01:16:08 PM
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2016, 01:03:08 PM
Netflix and chill?
:D
That's why he came back on the third day; mailed it in on BSG after 3.5.
Actually, it's just one of those doctrinal retcons that fit neatly into the timeline, and helps explain why his video recorder had recorded three days' worth of static.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2016, 01:07:46 PM
I have to wonder if that's something that non-Catholics are taught. I'll have to ask some of the locals.
I was raised Lutheran, and it wasn't something we were taught.
The most important thing about crucifixition and resurrection was that Christ died for our sins.
Granted, the Norwegian Lutheran Church isn't very fire and brimstone, but the sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of mankind was really the only important thing about Easter. No wonder we had Quisling. Should've given that lecture about Judas too.
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2016, 02:21:01 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2016, 01:07:46 PM
I have to wonder if that's something that non-Catholics are taught. I'll have to ask some of the locals.
I was raised Lutheran, and it wasn't something we were taught.
The most important thing about crucifixition and resurrection was that Christ died for our sins.
Granted, the Norwegian Lutheran Church isn't very fire and brimstone, but the sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of mankind was really the only important thing about Easter. No wonder we had Quisling. Should've given that lecture about Judas too.
The Harrowing is also about the sacrifice of Jesus - not only he gets killed to save the mankind, but instead of resting, when he is temporarily dead, he goes to hell to save the pagan souls there. And in more meta terms, it just shows that before you can be resurrected and undergo the apotheosis, you have to go through hell first.
Poor Jesus gets even more work in Catholicism. :cry:
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Seems a bit problematic on the whole allowing non-believers into heaven bit. Why was that only a one time deal? Surely there were lots of other people who were still living after Christ's death who never even had the chance to be Christians as it was still an unknown creed to them.
According to the Catholic doctrine, post-Harrowing, the virtuous pagans go to Limbo and get a chance to be saved in the second round, during the Second Coming. I mean, it's not like Jesus can do this stuff all the time - it would cause too much upheaval in hell, I presume.
Quote from: Josephus on March 26, 2016, 01:27:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 01:10:51 PM
Even for Catholics I think it is a pretty obscure reference - definitely not something that is frequently mentioned.
Other than in the Apostles Creed. "He descended into the dead"
Yeah but the way it is translated into most languages, I think people just think it is a flowery way of saying he was buried.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:25:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Seems a bit problematic on the whole allowing non-believers into heaven bit. Why was that only a one time deal? Surely there were lots of other people who were still living after Christ's death who never even had the chance to be Christians as it was still an unknown creed to them.
According to the Catholic doctrine, post-Harrowing, the virtuous pagans go to Limbo and get a chance to be saved in the second round, during the Second Coming. I mean, it's not like Jesus can do this stuff all the time - it would cause too much upheaval in hell, I presume.
He is omnipotent. Of course he could do it all the time, and with only as much upheaval as he desires. If he wants to do it with zero upheaval, it would be so.
If he wanted to have a system where everyone was saved no matter what they did, and have that system be perfectly just and merciful, it could be that way as well.
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 PM
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Why go to the trouble?
Just have everyone be saved on the first run to begin with, and save the hassle.
Not really sure I want to be saved. There'd be a dry heaven, no abortions and Ted Cruz might be there.
Quote from: Josephus on March 26, 2016, 01:27:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 01:10:51 PM
Even for Catholics I think it is a pretty obscure reference - definitely not something that is frequently mentioned.
Other than in the Apostles Creed. "He descended into the dead"
I learned "descended into hell".
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:38:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 PM
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Why go to the trouble?
Just have everyone be saved on the first run to begin with, and save the hassle.
You can't force people with those things.
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
Not really sure I want to be saved. There'd be a dry heaven, no abortions and Ted Cruz might be there.
Precisely. Rather tha dissolving yourself in the Divine, you may wish another go. It's pain and pleasure in equal measure, but you might still wish for new experiences.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:49:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:38:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 PM
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Why go to the trouble?
Just have everyone be saved on the first run to begin with, and save the hassle.
You can't force people with those things.
Who said anything about forcing anyone? Jesus could save everyone without forcing anyone. He is omnipotent. He could set it up so everyone is saved, while still enjoying complete free will.
And really?
You don't think "Be saved or suffer in eternal torture" force?
And from a certain perspective, pain and pleasure is really the same kind of neural excitement.
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:49:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:38:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 PM
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Why go to the trouble?
Just have everyone be saved on the first run to begin with, and save the hassle.
You can't force people with those things.
Who said anything about forcing anyone? Jesus could save everyone without forcing anyone. He is omnipotent. He could set it up so everyone is saved, while still enjoying complete free will.
And really?
You don't think "Be saved or suffer in eternal torture" force?
I clarify this more in the response to Norgy. I think "being saved" is more like "being dissolved in the Divine" as opposed to maintaining your identity and ego - which is a source of pain and suffering (as you are separated from the Divine) but still can be fun.
I mean the eternal torture of damnation is really a product of lurid minds of medieval monks - what really makes hell the eternal damnation is being separated from the Divine - some people may wish to postpone the union.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Seems a bit problematic on the whole allowing non-believers into heaven bit. Why was that only a one time deal? Surely there were lots of other people who were still living after Christ's death who never even had the chance to be Christians as it was still an unknown creed to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBWe6um41KU
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:51:37 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
Not really sure I want to be saved. There'd be a dry heaven, no abortions and Ted Cruz might be there.
Precisely. Rather tha dissolving yourself in the Divine, you may wish another go. It's pain and pleasure in equal measure, but you might still wish for new experiences.
Well except for the whole bit that you don't even know you are having new experiences as you don't even remember 'you.'
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:51:37 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
Not really sure I want to be saved. There'd be a dry heaven, no abortions and Ted Cruz might be there.
Precisely. Rather tha dissolving yourself in the Divine, you may wish another go. It's pain and pleasure in equal measure, but you might still wish for new experiences.
Well except for the whole bit that you don't even know you are having new experiences as you don't even remember 'you.'
The idea is that you do when you are given the choice whether to have another go.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:54:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:49:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:38:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 PM
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Why go to the trouble?
Just have everyone be saved on the first run to begin with, and save the hassle.
You can't force people with those things.
Who said anything about forcing anyone? Jesus could save everyone without forcing anyone. He is omnipotent. He could set it up so everyone is saved, while still enjoying complete free will.
And really?
You don't think "Be saved or suffer in eternal torture" force?
I clarify this more in the response to Norgy. I think "being saved" is more like "being dissolved in the Divine" as opposed to maintaining your identity and ego - which is a source of pain and suffering (as you are separated from the Divine) but still can be fun.
I mean the eternal torture of damnation is really a product of lurid minds of medieval monks - what really makes hell the eternal damnation is being separated from the Divine - some people may wish to postpone the union.
You can define "hell" anyway you like, it really doesn't matter.
Let's define "Outcome A" as "That outcome that Jesus/God wants humans to attain, and presumably one that humans ought to want to attain as well, given a devout and thorough understanding of the divine"
and "Outcome B" as "That outcomes that Jesus/God does not want for humans, but is there natural state absent 'salvation', and this state is presumably one that given a devout and thorough understanding of the divine no human ought to desire".
In typical Christianity, this is loosely labeled as "heaven" and "hell".
Given a omnipotent Jesus who went through what is at least described as considerable trouble to provide that salvation, I still don't see why he didn't just set the system up better so it was all unnecessary to start with - given that a fundamental of modern religious belief is that he has the power to set up the system in any fashion he sees fit, and the knowledge to know exactly how any system would turn out...
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:51:37 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
Not really sure I want to be saved. There'd be a dry heaven, no abortions and Ted Cruz might be there.
Precisely. Rather tha dissolving yourself in the Divine, you may wish another go. It's pain and pleasure in equal measure, but you might still wish for new experiences.
Well except for the whole bit that you don't even know you are having new experiences as you don't even remember 'you.'
The idea is that you do when you are given the choice whether to have another go.
Sure but then you don't really know anything about all of your experiences until say after round 2 when you are facing said dissolution into the Divine (assuming when you die again you gain knowledge of what you had done before...otherwise is it truly reincarnation if you just wipe out your previous self entirely).
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:58:58 PMGiven a omnipotent Jesus who went through what is at least described as considerable trouble to provide that salvation, I still don't see why he didn't just set the system up better so it was all unnecessary to start with - given that a fundamental of modern religious belief is that he has the power to set up the system in any fashion he sees fit, and the knowledge to know exactly how any system would turn out...
He gave humans free will to fuck it all up. GG Jesus.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:58:58 PMGiven a omnipotent Jesus who went through what is at least described as considerable trouble to provide that salvation, I still don't see why he didn't just set the system up better so it was all unnecessary to start with - given that a fundamental of modern religious belief is that he has the power to set up the system in any fashion he sees fit, and the knowledge to know exactly how any system would turn out...
He gave humans free will to fuck it all up. GG Jesus.
Again, omnipotent.
He could give us a free will, and set it up so we don't fuck it up as well.
Or set it up so lots and lots less fuck it up, or lots more fuck it up.
His perfect knowledge means that he already knew exactly how many would fuck it up, so it must be the case that he in fact wants exactly as many to fuck it up as HAS fucked it up.
So no worries, the system is working exactly as intended. Saved, not saved, it doesn't really matter, because logic tells us that either way, it is what the
person entity who set the entire thing up wants anyway.
The bible might *say* they want everyone to be saved, and of course that simply means that the system wants the bible to say that - logically it certainly is not true.
I think it is much better to have free will than for everyone to get the perfect score every time they take the test.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 03:22:41 PM
I think it is much better to have free will than for everyone to get the perfect score every time they take the test.
Omnipotent.
You can have both.
You're starting to make omnipotence sound like a real drag. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Seems a bit problematic on the whole allowing non-believers into heaven bit. Why was that only a one time deal? Surely there were lots of other people who were still living after Christ's death who never even had the chance to be Christians as it was still an unknown creed to them.
Some believe that Jesus also appeared to the people of the New World to give them a shot at salvation. Ask Jaron for more information about this.
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 03:17:32 PM
Again, omnipotent.
He could give us a free will, and set it up so we don't fuck it up as well.
Or set it up so lots and lots less fuck it up, or lots more fuck it up.
His perfect knowledge means that he already knew exactly how many would fuck it up, so it must be the case that he in fact wants exactly as many to fuck it up as HAS fucked it up.
So no worries, the system is working exactly as intended. Saved, not saved, it doesn't really matter, because logic tells us that either way, it is what the person entity who set the entire thing up wants anyway.
The bible might *say* they want everyone to be saved, and of course that simply means that the system wants the bible to say that - logically it certainly is not true.
I think you are taking this waaay too literally. Even in the Bible God gets all pissy because he cannot get his way. If he was supposed to be literally omnipotent he would just make the Jews behave.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 03:17:32 PM
Again, omnipotent.
He could give us a free will, and set it up so we don't fuck it up as well.
Or set it up so lots and lots less fuck it up, or lots more fuck it up.
His perfect knowledge means that he already knew exactly how many would fuck it up, so it must be the case that he in fact wants exactly as many to fuck it up as HAS fucked it up.
So no worries, the system is working exactly as intended. Saved, not saved, it doesn't really matter, because logic tells us that either way, it is what the person entity who set the entire thing up wants anyway.
The bible might *say* they want everyone to be saved, and of course that simply means that the system wants the bible to say that - logically it certainly is not true.
I think you are taking this waaay too literally. Even in the Bible God gets all pissy because he cannot get his way. If he was supposed to be literally omnipotent he would just make the Jews behave.
So he's metaphorically omnipotent?
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 03:55:19 PM
So he's metaphorically omnipotent?
Well if the core book has God not being Omnipotent maybe that is not as fundamental as everybody thinks? It is a spiritual quality of some sort. Jumping up and down demanding he be consistently and logically omnipotent when it seems pretty clear that was never claimed in that sense seems pretty absurd.
Anyway this science shit doesn't bother me. If you want science read a science book.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 03:55:19 PM
So he's metaphorically omnipotent?
Well if the core book has God not being Omnipotent maybe that is not as fundamental as everybody thinks? It is a spiritual quality of some sort.
Anyway this science shit doesn't bother me. If you want science read a science book.
Nice edit which was probably good as your original post didn't exactly make sense with you saying you didn't know what literal omnipotence was.
That last bit seems like a strange thing as this isn't really a science discussion other than yes in some fashion logic is a science. Remember it started though with Marti explaining to me why Jesus doesn't continue to grant free passes to heaven to virtuous pagans.
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 03:55:19 PM
So he's metaphorically omnipotent?
Well if the core book has God not being Omnipotent maybe that is not as fundamental as everybody thinks? It is a spiritual quality of some sort. Jumping up and down demanding he be consistently and logically omnipotent when it seems pretty clear that was never claimed in that sense seems pretty absurd.
Anyway this science shit doesn't bother me. If you want science read a science book.
Science? Who is talking about science?
If you want to posit a non-omnipotent God, that is fine - but there are kind of some logical issues with that as well. I mean, this is the guy who literally created the universe right? From nothing?
Is this the same god we are talking about?
I mean, if he created the universe, and created all the rules that govern the universe as well, then isn't he pretty much by default omnipotent, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be metaporical or not?
I suppose we could hypothesize some kind of deity that has the power to create the universe from nothingness, but does NOT have the understanding to know what he is doing, or how it would turn out?
I think you are getting pretty far, at that point, from the God of Christianity though...
Quote from: Habbaku on March 26, 2016, 01:07:46 PM
I have to wonder if that's something that non-Catholics are taught. I'll have to ask some of the locals.
I'm not religious at all and I knew that. I just don't think that it is very important in a modern Christian context. It was important when the "Classical" intellectual pagans were becoming a staple of Catholic theology, but these days their presence in theology is less important and taken for granted.
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 04:22:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2016, 03:55:19 PM
So he's metaphorically omnipotent?
Well if the core book has God not being Omnipotent maybe that is not as fundamental as everybody thinks? It is a spiritual quality of some sort. Jumping up and down demanding he be consistently and logically omnipotent when it seems pretty clear that was never claimed in that sense seems pretty absurd.
Anyway this science shit doesn't bother me. If you want science read a science book.
Science? Who is talking about science?
If you want to posit a non-omnipotent God, that is fine - but there are kind of some logical issues with that as well. I mean, this is the guy who literally created the universe right? From nothing?
Is this the same god we are talking about?
I mean, if he created the universe, and created all the rules that govern the universe as well, then isn't he pretty much by default omnipotent, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be metaporical or not?
I suppose we could hypothesize some kind of deity that has the power to create the universe from nothingness, but does NOT have the understanding to know what he is doing, or how it would turn out?
I think you are getting pretty far, at that point, from the God of Christianity though...
The problem with the non-omnipotent-and-omniscient god is that he could fuck up and send people to hell when they deserve heaven, and the reverse. If there is a chance that someone goes to hell who doesn't deserve it, then the concept of the perfectly just god disappears. That's the problem with "judgement" theology: if the judge isn't omni-omni, his judgments are faulty, but if he
is omni-omni then he could have set things up so there was a lot less suffering by the innocent.
Marti is now sounding more like a Hindu than a Catholic - reincarnation until you "get it right" and "merge with the divine" is what Hinduism is all about. There just isn't any judging: it is a process of eliminating karma, life by life, until you have no karma and join with Brahmin, the "ultimate reality."
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2016, 04:37:46 PMMarti is now sounding more like a Hindu than a Catholic - reincarnation until you "get it right" and "merge with the divine" is what Hinduism is all about. There just isn't any judging: it is a process of eliminating karma, life by life, until you have no karma and join with Brahmin, the "ultimate reality."
Pretty much - that's why I said Christianity would make much more sense if it had the concept. I am, if anything, a Christian heretic (on a good day) but don't really consider myself a Christian, strictly speaking.
As for the broader discussion, I think omnipotent and omniscient are just a way Christians (and Catholics especially) are trying to square the circle of having a God that is "awesome" while not falling to pantheism they consider a heresy (because it screws up with some aspects of their theology). Personally, I think pantheism makes more sense when talking about the nature of God than the "omnipotent and omniscient person" thing that Catholics have going.
That also shows why I think religions should evolve with our understanding of the world - because otherwise they become outdated and ridiculous.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 04:50:42 PM
That also shows why I think religions should evolve with our understanding of the world - because otherwise they become outdated and ridiculous.
THe problem there though is that one pretty quickly concludes that the rational "evolution" is to say "Yeah, it is all bunk".
It is pretty hard rowing to take a step down the "religion is a beleif system that can change with changing knowledge" path and end up somewhere other than atheism/agnosticism.
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 04:59:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 04:50:42 PM
That also shows why I think religions should evolve with our understanding of the world - because otherwise they become outdated and ridiculous.
THe problem there though is that one pretty quickly concludes that the rational "evolution" is to say "Yeah, it is all bunk".
It is pretty hard rowing to take a step down the "religion is a beleif system that can change with changing knowledge" path and end up somewhere other than atheism/agnosticism.
i think it is a matter of personal preference, really. Self-actualization and "sense of meaning" are the top level of Maslov's hierarchy of needs, and I think religion/spirituality of some sort plays an important part in that for many people. Of course it's not for everyone, but also other means of fulfilling this need (such as creating art) are not for everyone. But I think it is healthy to have something filling that need nonetheless.
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 26, 2016, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2016, 02:58:58 PMGiven a omnipotent Jesus who went through what is at least described as considerable trouble to provide that salvation, I still don't see why he didn't just set the system up better so it was all unnecessary to start with - given that a fundamental of modern religious belief is that he has the power to set up the system in any fashion he sees fit, and the knowledge to know exactly how any system would turn out...
He gave humans free will to fuck it all up. GG Jesus.
Again, omnipotent.
He could give us a free will, and set it up so we don't fuck it up as well.
Or set it up so lots and lots less fuck it up, or lots more fuck it up.
His perfect knowledge means that he already knew exactly how many would fuck it up, so it must be the case that he in fact wants exactly as many to fuck it up as HAS fucked it up.
So no worries, the system is working exactly as intended. Saved, not saved, it doesn't really matter, because logic tells us that either way, it is what the person entity who set the entire thing up wants anyway.
The bible might *say* they want everyone to be saved, and of course that simply means that the system wants the bible to say that - logically it certainly is not true.
Since you can "unfuck" yourself up pretty easily it seems we already live in that world. Presumably, Berkut is the type that would throw himself from a passenger ship and then refuse rescue shouting "if you really cared about my safety you wouldn't have built a boat that I would have jumped off from in the first place!"
Marty are you on this Christ kick because of Easter? :P
I don't know if god can be both omnipotent and just. It seems that's the conflict Christian mythology tries to reconcile.
Free will means all choices are available and all consequences must be taken along with them. If you could make choices but not take their consequences, it would be unjust.
So if omnipotent god wants to hand out some mercy for sins and still maintain justice there's the whole problem of who's gonna pay for all this. And that's where Christ comes into it. Without justice, all that dying on the cross stuff is unnecessary. It's god's way of having it both ways. But it's a lot of effort to go to just to maintain free will rather than simply making it impossible to people to make bad choices.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 12:42:35 PM
Where was Christ between crucifixion and resurrection?
Jesus, the man, was in his tomb. The Holy Spirit took 3 days to come back from Heaven.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 12:42:35 PM
Where was Christ between crucifixion and resurrection?
He was dead, you stupid fucking Polack
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 26, 2016, 06:32:41 PM
Marty are you on this Christ kick because of Easter? :P
I don't know if god can be both omnipotent and just. It seems that's the conflict Christian mythology tries to reconcile.
Free will means all choices are available and all consequences must be taken along with them. If you could make choices but not take their consequences, it would be unjust.
So if omnipotent god wants to hand out some mercy for sins and still maintain justice there's the whole problem of who's gonna pay for all this. And that's where Christ comes into it. Without justice, all that dying on the cross stuff is unnecessary. It's god's way of having it both ways. But it's a lot of effort to go to just to maintain free will rather than simply making it impossible to people to make bad choices.
Judeo-christian mysticism maintains (similarly to many other mystic systems) that you cannot ascribe any quality to God, because by doing so you are saying that God is not the opposite of this quality, which would mean He/She/It is no longer God. So even saying that God is good, just or merciful limits God (because this means that God is not non-good, non-just and non-merciful - which means there must be something outside of God that is non-good, non-just and non-merciful) and ascribing them to God is only a dualistic illusion created by our separation from God.
That being said, Mercy and Justice (or Severity) are names given to opposing pillars of the Tree of Life, and only in the highest (and unknowable) emanation of God they are reconciled - everywhere else they are in an imperfect imbalance.
Wotan Clan >>> Christian churches
It all comes down to the Gospel of Woody:
QuoteIf it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. I think that the worst you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 PM
That's why I think Christianity works much better with reincarnation - that way you get another chance if you don't get saved on your first run.
Except that it does not mean he went to Hell, but where the souls lay to rest before being sent either place. If you are in Hell, you are beyond salvation.
The canon French version of the Credo pretty much states it: "[...] a souffert sous Ponce Pilate, a été crucifié, est mort, a été enseveli,
est descendu aux enfers, le troisième jour est ressuscité des morts [...]". "Aux enfers" means in the sense of the greek concept of
Hades or the Jewish
sheol, not Hell where mortal sinners are cut away from God's sight and grace.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2016, 11:40:59 AM
It all comes down to the Gospel of Woody:
QuoteIf it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. I think that the worst you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever
Funny, that's pretty much exactly what god said about Woody Allen.
unknown and irrelevant. (speaking from the belief system I was raised in)
Quote from: Maximus on March 28, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
unknown and irrelevant. (speaking from the belief system I was raised in)
Ignorant and irrelevant would be a better response. And also a good description of your post. Why did you make it?
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 12:59:34 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 28, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
unknown and irrelevant. (speaking from the belief system I was raised in)
Ignorant and irrelevant would be a better response. And also a good description of your post. Why did you make it?
It is the answer to your OP, ffs.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 12:59:34 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 28, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
unknown and irrelevant. (speaking from the belief system I was raised in)
Ignorant and irrelevant would be a better response. And also a good description of your post. Why did you make it?
Because you asked?
Is it more ignorant to claim something is known or to claim it is unknown when it is, in fact, unknown?
Quote from: Maximus on March 28, 2016, 05:01:08 PM
Is it more ignorant to claim something is known or to claim it is unknown when it is, in fact, unknown?
It's not unknown according to Roman Catholic doctrine. I've pointed out before that sometimes Marti doesn't seem to realize that all Christians aren't Catholic.
Of course, that's just a bit of a joke, but he does sometimes show a lack of awareness of the doctrines and attitudes of non-Catholic Christians. Understandable for someone who grew up in Poland. What percentage of the population is non-Catholic Christian there? Less than 5% I'd say on a guess, maybe less than 1%. Again, that's just a guess, so I'm open to being shown to be wrong on that.
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2016, 12:51:08 PM
Creepy Catholic Marti is creepy.
I wonder if he is a christian?
Quote from: dps on March 28, 2016, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 28, 2016, 05:01:08 PM
Is it more ignorant to claim something is known or to claim it is unknown when it is, in fact, unknown?
It's not unknown according to Roman Catholic doctrine. I've pointed out before that sometimes Marti doesn't seem to realize that all Christians aren't Catholic.
Of course, that's just a bit of a joke, but he does sometimes show a lack of awareness of the doctrines and attitudes of non-Catholic Christians. Understandable for someone who grew up in Poland. What percentage of the population is non-Catholic Christian there? Less than 5% I'd say on a guess, maybe less than 1%. Again, that's just a guess, so I'm open to being shown to be wrong on that.
The second largest Christian religious group after Catholics in Poland are Orthodox Christians - they represent 1.3% of the general populace. All protestants add up to 0.38% of the populace.
In any case, protestants are simply heretics of the Catholic Church so there is no point paying any attention to them. :pope:
He pupated and dissolved into component cells that reformed into a new living creature; the same and yet different.
Quote from: Brazen on March 29, 2016, 05:08:10 AM
He pupated and dissolved into component cells that reformed into a new living creature; the same and yet different.
Jesus was a moth? That explains how he could "ascend to heaven."
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 05:12:51 AM
Jesus was a moth? That explains how he could "ascend to heaven."
Or towards the nearest light bulb.