#Christian Theology

[fromhisgrace]

Phillipians 4:6

[beloved-of-john]

it is absolutely not necessary to believe in a literal body resurrection to be Christian. this literalization of important stories does not make things more real.

for many people a literal body resurrection and a literal general resurrection of the dead are very definitely non sensical.

we are not bound to the 4th century worldview. the way Christians have understood Christianity has always been subject to evolution. the creation of the literal bodily resurrection you can see evolve in the new testament

Paul and Mark have no bodily resurrection. Matthew has visitations but in a way similar to the theophany @ sinai, a coming down from heaven.

John and Luke as the latest gospels have mixed aspects of their experience. experience that indicate a bodily resurrection tradition was. beginning by then.

I have to respectfully disagree. If you don't believe Jesus was physically raised from the dead then you are not believing the gospel. If a literal bodily resurrection is non-sensical, how do you deal with the raising of Lazarus? Do you pick and choose which of Jesus' miracles to believe in? Biblical literalism is not necessary in all cases, many parts of the Bible are written like poetry or literature to give us a better understanding of God, like the creation stories in Genesis, but this is not the case with accounts of Jesus' life. The gospels repeatedly ask you to believe the seemingly unbelievable. I'm not going to quote a load of scripture at you, but the New Testament does not support your view on this.

It is necessary to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as a Christian because God conquering human death is the foundation of our faith. Otherwise, what makes Jesus different to Elijah, who was taken up to God? The physical resurrection cannot be extracted from the belief of Jesus as our saviour. Plus, the Bible explicitly shows us that Jesus' physical body is resurrected, with Thomas touching Jesus's wounds still present on his body from the crucifixion.

Also, you imply that you believe Matthew and Mark to be true over Luke and John, because they came later and due to reasons of plausibility? Do you believe the gospels are divinely inspired or not? Don't get me wrong, you can be both a religious scholar and a Christian, but to be one doesn't make you the other. Being a Christian requires belief.

Also *out of breath* the Nicene Creed. God give me strength why does everyone think they just know better. It contains everything mandatory to believe to be a Christian.

"For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father."

Died -> buried -> rose -> ascended, not died -> buried -> ascended. There is no ascension without resurrection. The literal belief in THE key foundational concept of Christianity does in fact make things more real. Otherwise what is your faith based on?

[eelhound]

"Rituals are architectures of time, structuring and stabilising life, and they are on the wane. The pandemic has accelerated the disappearance of rituals. Work also has ritual aspects. We go to work at set times. Work takes place in a community. In the home office, the ritual of work is completely lost. The day loses its rhythm and structure. This somehow makes us tired and depressed.

In The Little Prince [1943], by [Antoine de] Saint-Exupéry, the little prince asks the fox to always visit at the exact same time, so that the visit becomes a ritual. The little prince explains to the fox what a ritual is. Rituals are to time as rooms are to an apartment. They make time accessible like a house. They organise time, arrange it. In this way you make time appear meaningful.

Time today lacks a solid structure. It is not a house, but a capricious river. The disappearance of rituals does not simply mean that we have more freedom. The total flexibilisation of life brings loss, too. Rituals may restrict freedom, but they structure and stabilise life. They anchor values and symbolic systems in the body, reinforcing community. In rituals we experience community, communal closeness, physically.

Digitalisation strips away the physicality of the world. Then comes the pandemic. It aggravates the loss of the physical experience of community. You’re asking: can’t we do this by ourselves? Today we reject all rituals as something external, formal and therefore inauthentic. Neoliberalism produces a culture of authenticity, which places the ego at its centre. The culture of authenticity develops a suspicion of ritualised forms of interaction. Only spontaneous emotions, subjective states, are authentic. Modelled behaviour, for example courtesy, is written off as inauthentic or superficial. The narcissistic cult of authenticity is partly responsible for the increasing brutality of society.

In my book I argue the case against the cult of authenticity, for an ethic of beautiful forms. Gestures of courtesy are not just superficial. The French philosopher Alain says that gestures of courtesy hold a great power on our thoughts. That if you mime kindness, goodwill and joy, and go through motions such as bowing, they help against foul moods as well as stomach ache. Often the external has a stronger hold than the internal.

Blaise Pascal once said that instead of despairing over a loss of faith, one should simply go to mass and join in rituals such as prayer and song, in other words mime, since it is precisely this that will bring back faith. The external transforms the internal, brings about new conditions. Therein lies the power of rituals. And our consciousness today is no longer rooted in objects. These external things can be very effective in stabilising consciousness. It is very difficult with information, since it is really volatile and holds a very narrow range of relevance."

- Byung-Chul Han being interviewed by Gesine Borcherdt, from "Byung-Chul Han: 'I Practise Philosophy as Art.'" Art Review, 2 December 2021.

[straynoahide]

tolkien meta: the melodic structure of the ainulindale, arda's endgame, and the doom of men

so basically this is about what one can learn and connect to the rest of the legendarium's lore from the ainulindale, and also peer into tolkien's psyche as a side effect i guess. expect excessive theology or more fun imo philosophy of divinity and lengthy tangents about melkor, the nature of evil and theodicy

a small disclaimer - this touches thorny topics in philosophy like the problem of evil, the nature of redemption/salvation, death...

this isn't about my beliefs but presenting and reflecting on tolkien's own within the history of ideas. i acknowledge anyone who reads this also has their own, and can agree or disagree with tolkien. my views may seep in unintentionally but i try to go deeper than that.

pd: I write Eru/One/God indistinctively on purpose. it's for rhetorical emphasis, not so much out of (default cultural) christianity.

part I - introduction (in this post) part II - the themes/structure, discussion part III - discussion (cont): themes of arda and life part IV - discussion (cont 2): theme of the children part V - discussion (cont 3): aftermath/second music

Introduction (i rec reading even if you're versed in the lore)

for those who are not so familiar with parts of the legendarium but still interested in a deep dive, the ainulindalë ("song of the ainur") is the creation myth of tolkien's world.

i rec just reading it if you haven't even if it's after reading this. it's quite beautiful and unique and it's brought admiration even from ppl who study that kind of thing professionally about real cultures. i'm not given to flattery but idk just check it out.

so anyway, the ainur, spirits born from the One creator's mind directly, sang under (or despite) His direction and the melody (both harmony and discord) that resulted, is the history of the world.

by the world we have two concepts here, the entire universe (eä) and the planet (arda) 'earth', of which middle-earth is a later-stage continent. the music itself was a creative process that the ainur partook in before knowing the full implication of their singing.

God showed the ainur the vision of what their music had created and when they saw the world they wanted to live it, to dwell on it and experience it.

God granted this but said they had to remain in it until the full music, the full story had played out.

this includes everything that happens in the Silmarillion, the LOTR movies and sequels/prequels, the TROP series, games, etc, and in some stages of Tolkien's opus, our own world (WWI, WWII, etc).

the Discord refers to the rebellious effect of Melkor on the music as much as his part of the music - the dissonance born from his part's coexistence with the rest of the melody that is in harmony, and takes a 'life of its own'.

this is not unimportant, but i'm not going to discuss it at any point. i will point out here that it has been argued -controversially- by some people to be relevant in compatibilizing or explaining otherwise difficult-to-reconcile lore points that deal with "non-Melkorian evil". this is about things like Ungoliant or the nameless things 'whose mention darken the light of day', whose in-world origins are unclear.

on a broader note, this represents two very different intuitions about evil and divinity (Tolkienian v Lovecraftian, we could say). these are difficult to compatibilize and more than Tolkien's psyche, represent ancient tensions within monotheistic religions themselves, i think. so within Tolkien's world, which has an Abrahamic/monotheistic god, you still find traces of Lovecraftian horror.

all that follows is about Tolkienian evil (meta) i.e. Melkorian evil (in-world), that is uncontroversially and explicitly under the governance of the One, although non-Melkorian evil is a fascinating subject.

[loneberry]

"disire, ch’è moto spiritale" —Dante, La Divina Commedia (The Divine Comedy, Purg. 18.31-32) Yes, desire is spiritual motion.

“You can’t get anywhere, including to God, without desire. Desire cannot be construed as, in itself, bad. It’s all about how we deploy it.” Prof. Teodolinda Barolini lecturing on Dante’s Divine Comedy

[chthonic-sorcery]

"The greatest tragedy was the burning of the Library of Alexandria"

While the loss of the Serapeum (Library of Alexandria) was a tragedy, it was far from the only mass book burning of classical literature and non-christian texts.

I don't think people understand just how much the church destroyed, even in its early years.

We lost thousands of years of ancient history, science, and classical thought. We lost entire writing systems, cultures, religions.

We lost possible origins of the entirety of civilization.

[thepatristictradition]

A Christian's Confusion on Syncretic Paganism

Though I'm an Orthodox Christian, I am good friends with a number of serious pagans-- especially Thelemites. From them, I've observed some controversies in the online and apparently IRL pagan communities. An idea I find confusing (frankly, ridiculous) is that Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, Freyja etc., are merely facets of the same essential deity: the "Love Goddess."

Orthodox Christians interact with Paganism in two main ways: First, we believe in the Seed of The Word. Basically, we believe that every religion, more or less, gets something right. Even theistic satanism gets about as much right as the Gnostics of old. It's good that pagans have a spiritually alive world-view-- something that is difficult to come by these days. Faithfulness is a virtue wherever you find it. Second, we believe in spiritual entities besides God. They were created by Him and ultimately work for his will, but they can either follow His deign or turn away from it, exactly as humans can.

There are some Christians that have a tendency to pull a similar sort of syncretism with paganism (Roman paganism in the Renaissance is especially irritating). They insist that figures like Jove were simply a halfway understood facet of The One True God. This is hardly even a historical opinion; the more common opinion is that the ancient and contemporary pagans were worshiping angles or demons, depending on their kind(1).

The Orthodox instinct is against syncretism and towards a highly alive and regional spirituality. Not only are there single guardian angles for each person, but there are angles of families, churches, dioceses, cities, countries, etc.; there are heavenly hosts. There are hosts of angles whose jobs are not to please or protect human beings. He has filled our earth with Spirits. The Orthodox theology on spirits is more similar to the more well-known Mohammadian theology on spirits. Western Christianity would tend to say that spirits who made themselves into demons by accepting worship cannot repent and serve God again, but the saints say differently. It is never our place to try to "convert demons", but it is possible.

Because of this near-animism, it seems natural to me that different regions are filled with different spirits. The recognition of that is something that I admire about paganism and something I wish my protestant brothers and sisters would become more comfortable with.

I want to know how this kind of syncretism is received by other serious pagans. Thus far, I've only met those who are against it.

1) There is argument about what constitutes a pagan culture that has worshiped demons and one that mistakenly worshiped angels. My take, the correct one, is that every pagan culture has done both. Further, there are most likely many spirits being mistaken for one figure. This is the opposite of the syncretic take.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Thinking: The Greek Scriptures is a bad way to refer to the last fourth of the Christian Scriptures.

[bee-of-saint-ambrose]

Christmas trees are not trees, according to Aristotle!

In Aristotelian (and Thomistic) philosophy, there are said to exist 3 types of souls - the vegetative soul, the animal soul and the rational soul. Now, it is a core concept of Aristotelianism that "the soul is the form of the body" - that is, the soul is the form or essence that causes a particular collection of matter to cohere into a particular thing; the soul makes something be what it is.

This seems somewhat arcane, but becomes more understandable when translated to a human person - the human soul is the animating principle of a human being, the property that causes all his diverse cells, organs etc to be an actual person, as opposed to merely an assortment of tissue. At death, when the soul departs the body, this unity is disrupted, and the body dissolves into its constituent matter. Thus, a corpse is not actually a human being.

But if the rational human soul is the form of the human body, then it follows that the vegetative pine soul of a pine tree is the "form of the pine". Thus, when I cut down a pine tree to place in my living-room for Christmas, I have of course killed the tree, and its soul has therefore vanished. But this means that the form of the tree has also vanished, and so what I am left with - what I call my "Christmas tree" - is in fact no more an actual tree, to Aristotle, than is a human skeleton a human being.

[fromhisgrace]

[beloved-of-john]

So. This is a personal life update of sorts.

Hello everyone, I'm trying to think of how to word what I need to say. I'm going through a big life transition of the spiritual kind, and it's forced me to think more deeply about where I am in my religious journey and where I want to be. As such, the content of this blog is likely going to change a little.

That is to say, there's probably going to be a lot less queer Christian specific content for a while. Don't panic! I'm still here and I'm still queer! But I want to avoid confining myself and my spiritual growth and understanding.

When I look around spaces like this, most of the people I see are queer people who have been raised religious and are deconstructing that framework to find a more liberating path, and that's amazing and empowering. However, I'm walking down this road from the opposite direction. I'm constructing. I'm completely acclimatized to being queer and out and loud about it, but it's being Christian that's the new frontier for me. At the moment, that's what I need to learn how to do. I know that my Christianity will always be inextricable from my queerness, but now I want to get to the stage where my queerness is inextricable from my Christianity. I want to grow and develop that part of myself and deepen my understanding of Christianity before I talk any more about its relationship to queerness and lgbtq+ experience. I need to learn what it means to me to be a Christian in its own right.

This blog will unequivocally remain a space of safety and solidarity for queer people and queer Christians though. I love all of you and I will always believe wholeheartedly that God does too. ❤️

I'll still do my best to answer any lgbtq related asks or comments and offer my support to anyone who needs it, just bear in mind that there's a good chance I don't know what I'm doing anymore than you.

If you've read this far without judgement, thank you for your patience and understanding. I'm going through this struggle right now, but I have faith that I will come out the other side of this a better rounded person.

[aesthetictheology]

I'm a few chapters into this book; I saw it recommended on Pinterest and impulsively requested it from the library not long ago (even though I'm supposed to be reading the books I already own instead of getting new ones from the library or buying more... but I have a problem, so...) So far, I'm really enjoying it. I find the tone very romantic, which is pretty atypical of books dealing with finances.

[luna-drinker]

I don't get how people can say God in the old testament was mean. The entire old testament is God chosing to love humanity despite them constantly disobeying him by being evil little bastards to one another.

[tmcphotoblog]

The POPE

Is

Not Your Father

Not

Holy

Not Infallible

Not GOD

Not GOD'S Representative

Not A Saviour

Not Sinless

NOT to be Worshiped.

[exvangelical-christian-nerd]

Some thoughts on "Hell is Forever"

TW religion, conservative Christianity

Hell is Forever is a bop. Musically I enjoy it a lot. And It's definitley one I'll go listen to separatelyfrom the others on occasion.

But

It is also probably the song that bothers me the most. And it does not bother me in a way I like. I've talked about before, how I like things that poke at my beliefs and make me ask questions. This one doesn't do that. This song is like a buzzing fly to my inner-theologian, and I think I figured out why (Ironically it might also be one of the reasons I enjoy it)

So I've been working on some of my series type content lately, including my devos. I'm trying to make a series based on the Hazbin songs (if that is something you're interested in let me know in the comments and I will try to tag you when I start posting them). Naturally this includes Hell is Forever.

The thing about Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss is that by their very nature they include some theology, but a good portion of it is hellaverse-ified. Some of it is theology and some Christian lore. It's part of the draw. Here's the diffrence between Hell is Forever, and most of the rest of it: Hell is Forever addresses real Theology, more or less directly. I'd say more than, possibly, any other part of either show so far.

Now before I go any farther let's make sure we all have the same definitions so my meaning doesn't get mixed up.

Real Theology= Theology actually believed by a fair portion of people.

Good Theology= Theology that is grounded and has biblical backing.

Bad Theology= Opposite of Good Theology

So yes, Hell is Forever has Real Theology. Here's the thing that gets me though: I wouldn't consider most of it Good Theology. In fact I would consider most of it Bad Theology.

Now the thing with Theology is that our interpretation of it is flawed. We don't know a lot and we don't agree on a lot. That's why there are tens of thousands of denominations. But the particular brand we get in this song is what I'm going to call "Bible Thumper Theology." Not all Bible Thumper Theology is necessarily Bad Theology, but plenty of it is. But honestly I have three major issues with Bible Thumper Theology. First is that it's weaponized. Whether your Theology is good or bad, using it as a weapon is risky business. Second, it's often pretty weak. Even if the theological concept is solid, their understanding of it is usually surface level at best. And third, so much of it is just cherry picking.

So here are the main theological points I identified in Hell is Forever. I'm not going to go deep into them now, because that would make this already long post way to long, and because I'm already planning on making posts specifically on them.

Hell is forever (Obviously)

Eye for an eye Theology (I don't know what else to call it)

Justification by the law (or works)

Justified k1ll1ng (which is obviously super yikes)

Now there are few others in there too, but I'd say these are the main ones. As I said I'm plannin to address these more later, though the first one, I'm still waffling on whether I want to tackle that or not. The primary reason being that I do believe eternal damnation is eternal (as much as I wish I didn't), however I am not going to join the fire and brimstone brigade. There are too many of them all ready. If I do tackle it, it will probably be about why I take issue with the fire and brimstone brigade.

But yes all that to say, Hell is Forever bothers me because it's essentially just Bible Thumper Theology, and Bible Thumper Theology annoys me because it's what makes the church as a whole look bad, and usually it is pretty Bad Theology.

Honestly most of the time someone starts spewing this kind of stuff at me, I can't help but think "Have you read your Bible, or do you just believe what your pastor tells you?" Is my theology flawless? Not a chance (If anyone ever says their's is, approach with extreme caution, or better yet don't approach at all). I am seeking and trying to sort out what I believe. And I'm growing.

Ironically, I think part of the thing I like about Hell is Forever is that the people spewing the bullshit are the villains. I have too often seen them up on a pedestal.