Christian tropers, join together!

I think he would have no problem with those people who treat it as a puzzle, and try to expand their understanding of how they think and communicate and perceive things by poking and prodding at it.

I do think that she would have a problem with those who try to use it as a hammer to make someone else admit they're wrong.

I think they'd facepalm at those who think that it can ever be "solved", and therefore treat it as SRS BSNS.

edited 6th Sep '12 1:43:45 PM by Madrugada

And that is sadly how I always see them being used. A fun little puzzle that can't be "solved" would be awesome.

BUT IT MUST BE A HAMMER. A HAMMER OF "YOU ARE ALL WRONG".

Like "Well why don't you just kill yourself?" for the "I wish to leave existence" position! Though that one is much more morbid. :D That's honestly a rather fun little thing to think through both in regards to atheistic and theistic Buddhism.

But no one listens. It just the "I WIN" button.

edited 6th Sep '12 1:46:05 PM by Aondeug

Some other theological questions, however, have more direct effects.

For example, one about which I've been thinking a bit lately (with no real insights, just mulling it over) is the following: how good and just a world can the humans create, without direct divine interventions (allowing for divine grace and so on, but nothing that would presumably count as an observable miracle)?

I am pretty sure that we lack the capability to literally bring Heaven on Earth by our actions (although Pelagians would disagree, for example); but sometimes I get the feeling that Christians, or at least I, go too far in the other sense and end up assuming that the thing to do is try to get the Good+ End for our own plotline, leaving the world to its own destiny. On one hand, I will admit, this is a point of view that one could perhaps justify pretty solidly through recourse to Scripture; but on the other, it just looks wrong at a very fundamental level to me.

I mean, sure, I lack the abilities to undo the effects of the Fall; but on the other hand, I do feel that I belong here, in a very basic sense, and I do have a duty to try to improve it as far as I can...

edited 6th Sep '12 1:53:29 PM by Carciofus

This is pretty much how I feel about it; sure the answer itself isn't really relevant, but I think it forces you to think about things differently than you would have otherwise. That, and sometimes you don't know if exploring a question will be useful until you do it.

Yeah, that is a pretty good question. I guess it boils down to one's view on exactly how far sin goes in influencing human behavior. Are humans basically good but flawed, or are they primarily terrible and only occasionally stumble into goodness? If it's the latter, earth would suck. If it's the former, I'm not sure. It wouldn't be perfect, obviously, as even if everyone had good intentions you'd still end up with people misunderstanding each other and the odd Well-Intentioned Extremist running around.

(First of all, why do you guys talk about the FUN topics when I'm away?)

Well, I think that in a certain way it doesn't matter. If the two greatest commandments as Christians are to love God and love others, isn't that the best way to bring about "Heaven on Earth"?

If everything we did, we did out of love, wouldn't that be a pretty good way of accomplishing that goal?

I'd like to think so, but it's easier said than done. That and just because somebody is doing what they think is best for somebody else doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

That said, I totally agree that those two commandments ought to take priority over everything else (Jesus himself said that if you followed them, everything else was covered), and the world would definitely be a better place if people did that. I certainly try, but it's an uphill battle.

edited 6th Sep '12 3:16:58 PM by JapaneseTeeth

True that what I think is best for you might not be what is actually best, but I would use that as an argument more for continual self examination, and a good group of peers then for this.

Although you are right that is easier said then done. Just because it's the most important thing doesn't make it easy.

You can't create Heaven on Earth, but who says you shouldn't strive for it?

(BTW I wouldn't really say it is a justifiable viewpoint that a Christian should strive for the creation of Heaven on Earth. This is what atheistic ideologies do. A Christian should strive for Heaven after the Earth, through his works on Earth.)

Well, I don't think "heaven on earth" is really the right way of phrasing it. I think it's more a matter of "making life on earth the best you can while you're still on it". It's not so much striving to create a utopia as making a personal decision to make a positive impact on the world.

Sorry, for the late reply. Regarding to my question about Adam much earlier. So he was in in heaven, before being sent to Earth?

What the Bible says is that Adam was created on Earth, in the Garden of Eden to be precise (personally, I think that the story of Adam and Eve is almost-but-not-quite allegorical, and did not happen factually in the terms described by the Bible; but let's put aside the literalism/allegory issue for now).

So, it seems to me, Adam was nowhere at all "before" (although I also tend to think of Heaven as disconnected from time as we understand it, and this makes such concepts as "before" and "after" rather tricky.)

Does this imply that the Earth is already created when God created Adam?

Yes.

According to the narrative of the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were created after the earth, the sky, the plants, the animals and so on.

And is the Garden of Eden on Earth itself? Or the whole Earth is the Garden of Eden? Or is it something else?

If we go by the literal meaning, the Garden of Eden was a physical region of Earth (and in a sense, it still is, although not one that can be reached by human beings.)

Personally, I am a fan of the view that the Garden of Eden symbolizes the universe as it should have been, and that "Adam" is just humankind as a whole; but then we get into issues of interpretation and allegory.

EDIT: By the way, one funny thing is that Adam is actually recognized as a Catholic saint. If — as I think, although that's certainly not the only possible point of view — he stands for humankind taken as a whole, this means that humankind as a whole is saint and that one can pray for its intercession

edited 7th Sep '12 12:08:29 AM by Carciofus

My take on last page's discussion on divine paradoxes: God defies logic. (or as the more earthy-tongued would say, "f&&& logic")

And wait, there's seriously a St. Adam? When's the feast day?

There are at least two. Adam and Eve's feast day is December 24; and the feast of St. Adam (a Benedictine abbot from the tenth-eleventh century) is June 3.

Wow. The Church deliberately set Adam and Eve's feast day for Christmas Eve? What Do You Mean, It's Not Symbolic??

Yes, it was definitely on purpose. I think that the symbolism is pretty clear — Christ is stated by Paul to be "a new Adam", for example, in that He redeemed humankind by giving us a way out from the consequences of Adam's fall.

edited 7th Sep '12 5:50:19 AM by Carciofus

By a literal reading of the Bible, the Garden of Eden was evidently some physical location on Earth, but all traces of it would have been wiped out by the Flood so the question of exactly where it was is rather pointless.

Perhaps somewhere in Near East, since the description mentions the Euphrates and the Tigris (plus other two rivers I don't remember)?

edited 7th Sep '12 7:16:53 AM by Carciofus

Pishon and Gihon (which we've never been able to locate), but Tigris / Euphrates would put it around the Mesopotamian basin - which, appropriately enough, is widely considered to be one of the origins of civilisation as we know it.

(Yes, I went to look it up on Wikipedia.)

edited 7th Sep '12 7:23:47 AM by Pyrite

That reminds me.

During my British Writers class, we were discussing the Biblical motifs, particularly the fact that Grendel is descendent of Cain and bears his mark. We were mostly talking in terms of Christianity, but someone brought Jewish influence as well.

Then one guy said that it might be that Beowulf actually influenced The Bible instead.

..........What?

Sure, there is no confirmed date on either Beowulf or The Bible, but archeological evidences we have so far indicates that the former was written in 8th century at earliest and the latter, particulary the oldest books, are writeen in 1400 B.C.

Internally, I was saying "You've got to be kidding me."

edited 7th Sep '12 8:46:21 AM by dRoy

This makes about as much sense as saying that The Silmarillion did.

Yeah, if anything any similarities would be the result of Christianity influencing the guy who wrote Beowulf. Even by the most liberal standards, the complete Bible as we know it was probably in circulation by the 2nd-3rd century. It's impossible that Beowulf influenced it. I mean seriously, if you're going to claim that something influenced the Bible, at least pick something that was actually around.