The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

If anything it's a doctrinal shift than a misconception, given that the vast majority of theologians view Satan that way.

I think "angels have no free will" is more an Islam thing, hence why their version of satan is a Djinn.

That said the idea "demons are angels that gained free will" isn't unheard of. There's a whole tabletop rpg based on the premise.

Edited by Elfive on May 17th 2019 at 12:43:35 PM

Honestly, many branches of religion reject free will.

Predestination "God has a Plan" Destiny

Huh, I see. I'd always thought of free will as being the thing that kicked off Christianity's particular flavor of Humans Are Special, myself, or at least what separated them (elevated them?) from angels and other creatures.

Well, that might be the case, but given stuff like nephilim and such it's... not very well supported by the text.

This is taken from an apologia article. I read it. It puts in a lot of mental effort to paint this as a good thing. I remain unconvinced, and horrified, at what seems to me like clear entrapment.

This motif goes on in the sequel, for what that's worth:

No, it's being 'made in the image of God' that makes human special. What that actually means is something people have debated for millennia.

Christianity tends to believe in a limited version of free will, in that you are free to act within the bounds of your nature. Of course, everyone has a sinful nature, which means you won't turn to God, so that requires literal holy intervention to fix - hence 'saved by Grace'. That's the crux of the Calvinist-Arminian debate btw, since the Arminians believe this grace is bestowed to everyone and it's up to them to take it up (in effect - everyone has free will), while Calvinists believe this grace is bestowed upon the elect, who are predestined individuals (making Salvation a deterministic act).

And those chosen just so happen to be rich.

Wonder if the whole rich-camel-heaven thing is edited out from Calvist bibles.

Arguable. Many Calvinist Christians would be quietly^note I say quietly sceptical because you're not really meant to make judgements about other people's salvation - it's something between them and God, and not for fellow humans to know - it's also too close to gossip for some sceptical of rich people's claims of being Christian, depending on certain factors. The perception is that there's a difference between everyone who claims the label Christian and those with 'true salvation'. Like I mentioned above, they may not always outright challenge someone's claims to be Christian if they're super rich^note or do anything else that would imply they aren't showing the proper "Fruits of the Spirit, but they might not believe them. Of course, people have just outright challenged Trump's claims of being Christian as BS.

IIRC, Arminianism got more popular in the States anyway, while Calvinism tends to be stronger in the Protestant congregations in Europe.

@Charles Phipps: "

There's a very good argument that the idea the Bible was meant to be treated as a historical document to begin with is actually an invention of later individuals.

Jesus, after all, taught in parable.

Why can't large portions of it be meant that way?"

I believe that most Christians actually think of the Bible that way. Most of us are not literalists, they just get all the press.

[Quoting me]:While historically the various Christian movements have been intolerant to the point of violence toward other religions, and each other, more recently great strides have been taken toward inter-religious cooperation and outreach.

"That's a kind of iffy statement there for multiple reasons. You can just as well say that about humanity."

Not sure I see the problem here. I was responding to the conversation about intolerance being characteristic of religion.

As for free will and Christianity, part of the trouble here is that free will itself didnt enter the popular culture anywhere in the world until fairly recently. Many of the people who wrote parts of the Bible (esp the Old Testement) really didnt concieve of individuals as having what we today would call agency. "Character is destiny", and you are born with your character. They were totally comfortable with condemning someone because of what they were, rather than what they choose to do, which would have been a difficult concept fo them to grasp. God, in this worldview, is more or less equivalent to "fate" or "destiny", and encompasses everything that exists, including the minds of individual human beings. In a world in which the individual person was taught and treated as an extension of their family and tribe, and in which their personal preferences counted for almost nothing, this made perfect sense.

For us, of course, this causes a degree of values dissonance. Attempts to apply post hoc rationalizations, so that individuals in the ancient past could be seen today as having had free choice in their actions, while still fulfilling "God's Plan", are just that, post hoc rationalizations. The modern theist has to make a choice: either God's will isnt destiny, or people do not really possess free will. Different denominations have made different doctrinal choices, but most folk Christians probably believe something along the lines of "He had the chance to act differently, but didnt take it."

Currently, my personal opinion is basically that there's a Xanatos Gambit. You have free will, but basically every choice available to you has consequences that God can make use of (even if they aren't necessarily 'plan A').

I always interpreted that God simply already knows how everything anyone does will end, meaning he already knows every "fork" and the consequences of every decision.

Kind of like, *groans*^note I hate bringing up fictional examples but it fits too well, here, Doctor Strange in Infinity War, just on a infinitely larger scale.

Cold blooded tbh

As a theology student who rejects Biblical Eternalism, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that there was a Word Substitute in the Book of Exodus. I imagine, a couple of thousand years ago, it was entirely possible that the original story had it written "RA hardens Pharoah's heart" and it was a conflict of gods.

How I interpreted that is that when God says he'll harden Pharoah's heart, he means that Pharoah's heart will be hardened by thinking about God.

@ Red Savant: Christianity has a curious case of Humans Are Special and Humans Are Bastards

My brain somehow conjured up the image of Pharaoh having a heart boner for God. A hate boner, to be specific.

x3 I thought it was the default interpretation: the ten plagues made the Pharaoh bitter and even more cruel in his treatment of the Hebrews because he was having his power and authority challenged.

Aren't the 10 plagues and the whole Exodus thing from a time they had a Pantheon and El with Yahweh were still separate?

@alekos23 Not quite. If I recall, in the original Hebrew, God actually mentions that he's both. Something along the lines of "Your people already knew me as El, but my name is Yahweh". However, the names of God tend to be translated out of English translations, so it usually is translated to "Your people already knew me as God Almighty, but my name is I Am".

I could be wrong about that, though-take that with a grain of salt.

At the time, Judaism was henotheistic, believing other gods exist but that only YHWH should be worshiped. Exodus does imply (if not outright state) that the priests of Egypt were indeed capable of supernatural feats. They were capable of emulating some of the miracles Moses did to a point (though they're clearly less powerful). For example, when Aaron turned his staff into a snake, Egyptian priests were able to do the same. Aaron' snake ate their snakes, resulting in the first Pokemon Battle. By the third plague though they admit they're outmatched and tell pharoah exactly that.

,

I think try to do that it a problem of mixing history and legend. The henotheism and the Yaweh being distinct from El and part of a wider Canaanite pantheon is from our best understanding of history.

The story told in Exodus is pure legend. Despite numerous attempts to do so there is no corroborating evidence from elsewhere, either archaeological or in the Egyptian's own records (and while far from complete we do have at least some).

Also the Exodus story tends to be pushed sometime into the late Bronze Age while the Hebrews/Israelites didn't exist as a distinct group from the wider Canaanite peoples until some time in the early Iron Age.

I should note that when I say 'at the time' I mean 'when Exodus was written'.

There's always the claim the Hyksos are the Israelites and it's an elaborate metaphor.

But that would amusingly mean Set and YVHS were the same god.

Or Atum/ the proto-Aten/ whatever the heck was happening there-then. <shrugs>

Given that the Aten was an aspect of Ra before, well, Armana, and that Atum got outright fused with Ra in time...

And, then have a gander at the similarity between Atum's base legend and the Biblical creation myth.

I think some guy with "mose" in his name wasn't really all that creative in stitching his ideas together when he went up a mountain.

Edited by Euodiachloris on May 17th 2019 at 2:21:39 PM

Even that's an open question. Certain schools of literary analysis hold that the Pentateuch/Tanakh were originally complied from multiple sources or literary tradition, none of which where entirely fixed until they reached their current form some time after the Babylonian Exile.

While an amusing idea, honestly a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Turning my generosity settings to maximum I might accept that it started out as an allegory for Egypt losing its hegemony over the Levant as its power waned in the lead up to the Late Bronze Age Collapse, but even then that requires the story to have drifted significantly between its inception and the version we've got.

Edit for

Edited by KnightofLsama on May 17th 2019 at 11:20:03 PM