the God in the sky I worship is not a monster, unlike timeless fsm that is in the sky watching him sleep in the nude,

Maybe. I don't think babies count though. They're more like accessories.

Incidentally I'm studying right now for a medieval theology exam, so if you'll indulge me we can discuss this on theological terms.

The Roman Catholic church would say that babies are more than accessories. They are tainted lumps of sin that must be baptized ASAP or they might go to hell (Augustine's view) if they die, although many promoted the more humane idea of limbo where they are happy, just not as happy as they would be in heaven.

Of course the Eastern Orthodox doesn't have that emphasis on original sin and just might agree with you, babies are okay and not little hellspawn nor inherently little angels, they're just there until they can sin on their own.

Nope. Totes serious.

Now.. was that sarcasm or no?

Babies probably do go to hell. It's supposed to be a miserable place, so it makes sense that it is full of babies.

You know, that brings to mind something I hadn't considered.
So assuming the whole Genesis deal the first two people eat fruit that they aren't supposed to. As a result of that, not only are they fucked, but every person who comes after them is fucked. Forever.

Then roughly 2000 years ago give or take, we're supposed to believe God sacrificed himself / his son (depending on whatever) to fix that.

So one person eats fruit, and everyone that comes after them: Fucked.
One person accepts Jesus or whatever, and everyone who comes after them: Still Fucked.

Sacrificial blood of the savior of the world: Less spiritually potent than a few bites of magic apple.

If one believes in original sin, yes. There's no mention of it in the Hebrew Bible and I don't think Mormons believe in it either.

Fun fact: the heresy that refers to Jesus as a subordinate to the Father is called Arianism.

Depeeeeends. Eastern Orthodox is/was more forgiving, less emphasis on damnation and more emphasis on reunion with god (theosis). You have original sin, to them, but not guilt, and you don't need to be punished if God forgives you. Catholics had hard ons for depictions of damnation, although the doctrine of limbo held that anyone who was good but lived before the resurrection of Christ went to the limbo of the patriarchs until Jesus was down for three days and let them up into heaven.

And then there's the inclusivist view the Catholics took at Vatican II; the Holy Spirit is bigger than the church and cannot be controlled by the church, therefore any person of any religion is probably saved through grace, they're just confused about their experience. Catholics officially believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true divine revelation, but Buddha was probably receiving grace under that bodhi tree so he isn't in hell, he was just sadly mistaken about the nature of his experience.

There's enough Hebrew that can be interpreted to either support "Original Sin", or to at least suggest that humanity has enough inherent awfulness to make it a pedantic point. In either case there's something wrong with people and it's their fault because God, being infallible, couldn't have possibly made something flawed.

Yep, Arianism, that's one of the things decided on in the Nicean Council. I spent way too much of my life slogging through that nonsense that I will never get back.

The idea of Limbo is just one of many vile papist fallacies. There's no Hebraic basis for that one. And now they're letting just anyone into heaven. Amazing.

the bible teaches that anyone can go to heaven, if they accept Jesus as savior and Lord

Unless of course the brutal Calvinists are right, wherein unless you are part of the Elect, no amount of work or faith will save you from your pre-ordained destruction.

Oh yes, all the ugly parts of high school are coming back. Too bad I burned my copy of Institutes, I bet there'd be some choice quotes to offer up.

If you're a Christian looking for something in the Old Testament looking for that point, but there's no mention of it, no hell, and no afterlife in the Old Testament, the Sadducees you might remember mocked Jesus because they believed there is no afterlife at all. Originally not all Hebrews believed in the Fall anyway, this is why Genesis has two creation stories, the first has no mention of a fall and the second one does. Even Cain wasn't inherently evil, God tells him to look inside himself and find the goodness in himself. "Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won't you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it."" In Judaism, we have the capacity to do good or or go astray. This is in contradiction with the doctrine of original sin, good deeds don't matter without grace, and Cain could not have had grace.

From what I understand Jewish interpretation is that the Fall wasn't even necessarily bad, its just why we are mortal and we have to work hard and God doesn't give everything to us on a silver platter. This is very different from early Catholic interpretations. Augustine believed we have no capacity to do good without grace.


It came from the Augustine idea that God preordinates who will receive grace (who will be vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath.) Its a really dismal view that it really doesn't matter what we do, because God already decided before we were born, and its only going to be a minority of us. Which they contradicted early on with the Tertullian idea of merit, but I digress.

Shush sweetie. The grown-ups are talking.

honey I went to college for a many years, and they don't see anything past the major religion, or the smoke screen , and what they want you to see

I don't think you believe this. But if you really do...

Will you promise to be more reasonable with your beliefs in the future in 2013? You know... when you're wrong?

Says the person who sincerely believes the world is going to end in less than 3 weeks.

Your sarcasm meter IS seriously off isn't it?

you pied your self ? what made you laugh ?

These days I only look through religious texts for entertainment purposes. My favorite was one I think Ashley pointed out, where God's armies had to retreat because holy shit those other guys had iron chariots, or something like that. It was great.

It is an absolutely dismal view. It's thankfully out of scope for your medieval study, but if you really want to have something to shake your head sadly over give Christian Reconstructionists a glance over.

No capacity to do good? That's adorable. Reminds me of the "Total Depravity" idea. As broken evil humans, everything about our nature is supposedly fucked, even stuff we think is good is completely worthless to God. The slightest sin is an absolute affront and worthy of total damnation. God, out of sheer mercy, may decide to not throw some number of humans to the fate they perfectly deserve. Whatevs :-)

If we assume an all knowing and all-powerful deity, then doesn't it follow that all actions and results are known to it and either allowed or caused by it? Preordination seems like an inevitable result of said God's attributes. Is there any difference between action and inaction when discussing an omnipresent all knowing all powerful entity?

Jesus is the true king of Israel

...Yes it is. I did say that.

How can he be a direct descendant of the house of David? That whole virgin birth Son of God thing sounds mystical and important but it kind of burns that whole covenant prophecy thing.

I always liked the story of Ruth, and I've liked it more since I realized Ruth was queer and its very much celebrated that she was in love with Naomi.

If it makes you feel better its mostly an American phenomenon. From what I understand a lot of the Southern white racist churches went right after the end of segregation (the Southern Baptist Church only apologized for supporting segregation, like what, at the end of the nineties? And there was a church in Alabama who recently refused to marry a black couple.) and in the eighties the Republican party really went out of their way to nab them. It makes sense, I think, that as churches get involved in political life they're absorb the rhetoric of their party preference. I have a professor who believes that capitalism is a new religion as its staunch supporters have absolute faith in the "markets" and how they'll correct themselves and everything will be fine. Rescrutionalists would then be a case of syncretism.

On the whole though I find protestant exclusivism to be really funny, since they're the ones who started the idea that pushed forth into pluralism. For Calvanism, let's say, to work, God has to be able to work outside the Roman Catholic Church. God is bigger than the church, they said. Therefore, modern pluralists say, God should also be bigger than the protestant churches and Christian community as a whole.

The Catholic church in practice veered way from that, with the distinction between venial sins and mortal sins. Mortal sins (like, lets say, murder) would land you in hell if you did not get absolution in life, but if you died before gaining absolution for venial sins, you do time in purgatory and then go to heaven. And of course Tertullian gave us the great and often exploited idea of merit, if you are good you can wipe your sins clean, and God might end up owing you. You could get loved ones out of purgatory by holding Gregorian Masses for them (after paying the church to do so many masses for them) and of course the whole sale of indulgences thing that Luther got his panties in a twist about.

It wasn't something the Catholic church was ever able to solve, the argument just slowly fizzled out. There's the theory that God foresees things but doesn't necessarily predetermine all of them, there's the theory that God foresees things and therefore doesn't bother giving grace to those who he knows aren't going to use it, and there's the theory that God sees all possibilities, he sees what we'll do and what we might do and what could have been if we decided differently. None were ever crowned to be canonical though.

Are you ok?..

Isn't it because ancestry is traced through the maternal blood line?

The Bible says Joseph is of the house of David, not Mary.

Fun fact: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox both hold that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. The Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus, but the Eastern Orthodox say its because Joseph was much older than Mary and had children from a previous marriage. Many Roman Catholics love the idea of virginity so much though so they say Joseph is a virgin too, the brothers and sisters were adopted.