Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Alright, so, looking at the Bible today, I see that many of the things I took for face value in the past could actually be metaphors for something else entirely. I here present my alternate theories on Creation, asw well as Satan and Hell.

Creation:
I bleive in Creation, as well as the Big Bang. Think aobut it. Scientific discoveries prove that when the Big Bang occured, the first particles released were those which produce light. Funny - that's the same thing the Bible says. Also, when the Bible says days - well, I'm sure that (since in the Bible it says "a moment is as a thousand years to Him") a day would be much longer to God himself, that things could've been going on longer than most Christains and Jews think. Thousands? Millions? Billions? More than likely. I do not, however, believe in Evolution - simply because there is so much new scientific evidence pointing against it.

Satan and Hell: There is no Satan. WE are Satan. The story in which Satan rebelled against God in Heaven is allagory for the Adam and Eve story. Adam and Eve lived with God, basically the closest thing to heaven there ever was, and then rebelled agianst him - deciding THEY should be in charge of their lives, not him. In return he "threw them down to hell' - Hell, of course, being the imperfect world we know live in. Think about it - there is much grieveing and gnashing of teeth on Earth, isn't there? So, the rapture is not how most picture it, in my opinion - God will save all the Christians before it happens, but what the Revelation story really paints is World War III. A nuclear war, lead by the supposed son of Satan, according to Revelation. If we ourselves are Satan, then our "son" would be like the fruits of our labors - which in this case would be "hate and destruction". Hate and Destruction will so blind people that they destroy there own Earth. It will all End in fire, and later God will reconstruct a new Earth - one that is not Hell. All non-christian people who die will simply do just that- die. They have experienced Hell their entire lives, and now pass on forever, never to see or hear from god again - a sad fate in its own right. Christians will live in Heaven with God, until he reconstructs the New Earth, where we will all live as Adam and Eve once did - peacefully.

Thoughts? Opinions?

_________________
New Banner Soon...

I agree about the big bang/creation thing, but not about the part the we are Satan.

Gonna have to agree with ya there: humans ARE evil. Incredibly evil. We're gonna nuke this planet to hell, move on to another one, and repeat the same thing over and over again, untill we're so lazy, greedy and scary you might as well call us the Combine. Or untill we're all gone.

On the other hand, the 'son of Satan' doesn't have to be 'hate and destruction' (or human nature, as we could call it). It might be something we made (also fruit of labour, right?), which brings us to the Terminator/Matrix apocolypse theory: machines are going to get so incredibly smart they'll just do away with humanity for being blundering ineffectient fools.

There, stupid theory number 2.

The first one makes perfect sense; I've heard stuff like it before. However, I disagree with the 2nd. The story of Satan's rebellion against God would be a prologue to Adam & Eve, not an allegory. Adam & Eve brought sin to the human race, & it was Satan who led them to sin, in the form of a serpent. Adam & Eve weren't living in Heaven-they lived on Earth, in Eden. When God saw what they did, they were kicked out.

About your "grieving and gnashing of teeth on Earth" argument: Is that ALL that's going on in this world? Some people would look at the world & say there is no God because there is so much evil. However, I still see a lot of good here on Earth.

When we die, we go to one of 2 places: Heaven, if we've accepted Christ, & Hell, if we choose to disobey Him. That's where the REAL suffering is.

_________________

The Bible clearly teaches that Satan is a person, not humanity. Satan in Hebrew means "Accuser" or adversary, and the majority of the times he appears in the Old Testament, he is playing the role of Prosecuting Attorney in the heavenly court. Adam, on the other hand, means Mankind, and Adam fills the role of representative of the entire human race.

The problem with your theory is that there are accounts of his work in which Satan is clearly not a representative of the human race, but an adversary. The chief example is that of Satan accusing God's righteous servant in Job 1 and 2, and later accusing the high priest Joshua in Zechariah 3. Then, once we get into the New Testament, he was with Jesus when Jesus fasted in the desert, tempting Jesus to abandon his mission of pain and sorrow (which began with the fasting) so that humanity might be entirely lost. Throughout the New Testament, we also see plenty of instances of dark powers at work in people, both cooperating with them (as with the magicians in Acts) and against them (as with the possession accounts in the Gospels).

The point is, neither the Old Testament nor the New ever suggests that Satan is anything other than a person, a fallen angel whose mission in life is to destroy the gifts which God has given to humanity. Plus, I know from personal experience that the dark forces at Satan's disposal are indeed at work in this world, and if they are real, then so is their commander.

The good news is that, while he is the enemy of mankind, he is also a defeated enemy. Because of what Christ accomplished on the cross, all he can do now is plot his petty little schemes until the end. As the Scriptures say, "Every knee shall bow, in heaven, on earth, and even under the earth (i.e, hell), and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11).

Just read the accounts of Jesus in the desert (Matthew 4, Luke 4).

Make no mistake about it. The Enemy is real, and he is at work in this world.

_________________

If people truly are Satan, as I believe, then it would have been merely a restatement of the same story, in different form, to make a pont. Most believe the use of "serpent" was a conscious and metaphorical choice and not a literal one - we often associate snakes with bad things. Maybe the snake was really just bad intentions in Adam and Eve's mind. And yes, I realize that they lived in Eden, but they could talk to God freely - they had more freedom with prayer than even Christians do today. They also lived in a paradise - God created Earth to be a second Heaven to put his creations in, until "the seprent" tempted Adam and Eve.

_________________
New Banner Soon...

Except that Satan is nowhere portrayed as a representative of humanity. On the contrary, he is ALWAYS portrayed as humanity's enemy. Furthermore, I am convinced that the desert accounts I cited above present him as a very real being, not a symbolic representation of anything.

I will suggest a very good book on the topic as it relates to pastoral care: The Bondage Breaker by Dr. Neil T. Anderson.

_________________

You make hard-to-argue with points, Didymus. But I shall attempt to argue with one...

When Jesus was tempted in the desert, is it not possible that he, as a man, was listening to the little Satan inside all of us? If Satan truly is mankind, and Jesus was a man, it makes sense that he would face temptations. many people believe Satan brings on these - I believe it is our own consciouses and tarnished lifestyles that do it. It was this idea that sparked my theory about Satan and Hell.

_________________
New Banner Soon...

In a highly allegorical way, your theory might make some sense. What it does not make sense of, however, are the numerous accounts of demonic possession described in the Bible, nor the experiences I myself and others have personally had with the forces of darkness.

Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that there are varied sources of temptation: the world (i.e., culture and surroundings), the flesh (i.e., our own sinful minds), and the devil (i.e., the adversary).

I would also add to the other book another you might want to read: The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis.

In short, your theory is nice, but the conclusion is incorrect. The devil, his minions, and hell are very real, and are not mere allegory for the evils we face in this life.

_________________

Well, I know when I've been beat...

I had not taken demonic posession into account - and now, I'm not quite sure how to explain that one. So, until I research my theory further and find some way to explain that, I guess I'll have to accept defeat for the time being.

_________________
New Banner Soon...

I'm reading that at night! Very poignant.

The Screwtape Letters is a series of letters from one of Satan' top tempters, Screwtape, to his young nephew, Wormwood, that tell Wormwood how to tempt his latest "patient", a young Englishman. Basically the book is Lewis' view of how Satan & his demons tempt & control us.

_________________

I've actually taken some of the Bible to be metaphorical for a while now, including Genesis (which is why I can't see what the big fuss is over creationism and evolution, except the argument over whether creationism should be taught as a science; that evolution is a scientific study which stands a chance of being proven, and creationism is a hypothesis that can't be tested).

Er, anyway. The Bible is a compilation of historical accounts/documents, stories, antecedotes and the like. Even then, some stories that aren't true in the literal sense do fit with modern scientific theories in a more metaphorical one.

The whole "Ezekiel's Spaceship" theory really intrigued me, and it got me thinking. I mean, if you were sent back to, say, the time of the Romans, how would you describe things we have today? Computers, airplanes, spacecraft, heck, Even guns! Latin doesn't have words for such things (obviously), so you'd have to describe what you know in the context of what they know, using symbolism (airplanes being 'birds made of metal' is one I'd use).

_________________

But such theories do not reflect good scholarship of the biblical texts. Even the so-called "spaceship" theory fails to take into account the actual description of the creatures involved, or that these creatures were specifically subserviant to God. At least according to the descriptions. In other words, the creatures themselves are not supposed to be the focus of attention, and yet that's what everyone gravitates toward. Why is that?

But here's yet another consideration: while "UFO's" might explain the opening chapter of Ezekiel, it does not explain his lifelong prophetic career. In other words, read the entire book of Ezekiel and consider how exactly this first chapter fits in. From a biblical standpoint, it's easy. The opening chapter of Ezekiel was a vision of God himself, which all great prophets typically received at the beginning of their careers. Not UFO's, not space aliens, God himself.

Now, I do have to challenge you on something, Trev. What makes you so confident that you can determine which parts should be understood literally and which are not? My concern is that you are making a huge leap with that claim. As a Bible scholar, I am fairly confident that the vast majority of the scriptural texts are true in the literal sense.

_________________

Look, Didymus, I understand you're a bible scholar and I take nothing away from that. In fact, I respect that greatly--but I do need to point something out. If I recall correctly, you're a Lutheran, a faith that broke off from the original Catholic church with disagreements over quite a few things, some of which involve worldly politics and administration, but still others were over interpretation and thelogicial issues.

Many Christian faiths disagree over their various interpretations of the Bible, and it's not just the fringe groups who argue from what I've seen--I've seen debates in real life between people I know who were Catholic and Baptist, for example. As such, I have my own theological beliefs, but I'm not 'confident' so much as that what I see makes sense to me.

You might call it audacity for me to form my own beliefs concerning the Bible and God, but it's spurred on by the fact that there is a myriad of interpretations among human beings as to the word of God and the Bible--and if my own interpreation proves to be horribly wrong, then God will backhand me with a 2x4.

I generally keep quiet over specifics because things like this happen--because I'm non-denominational and I have ideas that don't quite fit with anyone else's, I tend to attract people eager to debate me into submission from ALL sides.

_________________

And it is my contention both as a Lutheran and as a Bible scholar that the vast majority of misinterpretations of the Bible are caused when people do not know the Bible well enough to understand it. Having said that, I would still contend that there is no substitute for actually studying it and coming to understand it as a whole.

I think the whole allegorical approach does not do justice to the texts. The texts themselves are presented as history, not as allegory. Just as an example, the resurrection of Christ is presented in all four gospels and in the epistles as a historical reality. To then interpret the resurrection as a mere allegorical story does not do justice to the way the event is presented as history. In other words, if it is true, it is true in a historical sense, and if it is not true, then allegorical interpretation of it is meaningless. St. Paul says as much.

So why is it then that everybody wants to interpret the Scriptures differently? I already presented one reason above: ignorance of the Scriptures as a whole. There's another: the fallen human nature. People like to think they know everything. Therefore, rather than allowing the Scriptures as a whole to shape their thinking, they cling to those few gems of truth that make sense to their limited minds. All people are guilty of this to some degree, but this is not license for us to take the Scriptures less seriously. If anything, it means we should be more intentional about our study and about taking it seriously. Only when we allow Scripture to shape our thinking, rather than the other way around, will we be able to step past the realm of personal interpretation and into the realm of divine truth.

In other words, will we allow Scripture to judge our thinking, or will we let our thinking judge Scripture?

So, to sum it up, the reason for all these various interpretations is twofold: (1) ignorance, and (2) arrogance (and this is true of everyone). The remedy, then, is for us to be even more diligent in our studies and in trusting the Scriptures. Or, as St. Paul put it

_________________

I suppose you're right on the arrogance part; to claim that even the Roman Catholic church, right up to the Pope, is ignorant of the scripture is quite arrogant indeed!

Therefore while I still respect your knowledge and background as a Bible scholar, I'll take your accusations that everyone who has a different interpretation or tradition with the Bible is ignorant and wrong with a grain of salt.

_________________

awesome, swooshoman, you have doth put into words what i thou art to think of to say bout thee creation and thine hell. but one thing: your so-cal "New Scientific Evidence" Pointing to no evolution is wrong. we did evolve from the lowest living life on eart. you see, the origins of humanity was water. and where did water come from? several millions of Comets that hit primordial earth. we started to evolve after the earth began to form a suitible atmosphere for life. then, in the miracle of god, he doth created the first form of life. The Ameoba, wich all life formed from in a tiny pool of water. several millions of years later 2 ape like creatures crawled out of the water, to later evolutionize into Modern man, and Neanderthal. several other millions of years later, man began to become modern, and hunt in groups, while the neanderthals hunded by themselves. one day, when the neanderthal was hunting for a pig, he ran into a pack of humans. for some time, they stared at each other, wondering who this mysteriouse species loks like. and then, the Humans Attacked the Peacful Neanderthal, and killed him. and through out pangea, man waged war against Neanderthal, until the final one was killed. and thus humans were left alone, as the only smart species in the world. and now here we are today, big fat, and uses electricity and computers to do everything for us. and thats why evolution is so important.

_________________

Ah, but there's the problem. The pope in Martin Luther's day was clearly ignorant of the Scriptures and extremely arrogant of his own authority. Otherwise, he would not have made some of the outlandish claims and policies that he did. Keep in mind, it was the Roman Catholic Church that made Martin Luther a Doctor of the Church, and then undermined the very authority which it gave to him, even to the point of trying to prevent him from carrying out the calling which they had given him, that of teaching the Scriptures. So, no, I do not believe it was either arrogance or ignorance that led Martin Luther to resist the Roman Catholic Church, but rather knowledge of truth and confidence in that truth. As he stated at the Diet of Worms, unless one can demonstrate from the Scriptures and sound reasoning why he was wrong, he had no reason to believe that he was.

And I was not claiming to be without my own arrogance and my own ignorance. Just like everyone else, I too must submit my own thoughts to the test of Holy Scripture, and allow it to judge me rather than the other way around. However, knowing that I do indeed have knowledge, as well as authority, based on what has been entrusted to me, I find myself in the same place as Martin Luther: I do have knowledge of the Scriptures, and I am both confident and competent to speak from that knowledge. I apologize if that came across too strongly, but by the same token, it is a challenge. Like Martin Luther, I can only back down if someone can demonstrate from the Scriptures themselves that I am mistaken. To quote the man, "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise." That may sound arrogant, but I assure you, it is merely confidence in what I do know. In other words, my confidence is not in myself, but in what has been given to me, the Word itself and the authority to teach it as it has been revealed.

_________________

Read a book called "The Case for a Creator". If your on a lower reading level (I'm not insulting you, if it seems that way), look for the Student Edition. It shows tons of evidence pointing toward Intelligent Design, and also tons DISPROVING Evolution. It doesn't push anything about Christianity on you, but its a good read and lays out lots of evidence. Give it a try.

And, Didymus, I actually took your adivice and purcased The Screwtape Letters. I'm hopinh its good!

_________________
Good bye for good...

It is a challenging read, meant to show some of the subtle ways that the enemy is at work (or at least tries to be) in our very lives.

Incidentally, (and this might actually be something for another thread), but Lewis' The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe is coming out this year. The previews look excellent.

_________________

A question to someone in the know - how much do Christians today believe that Man's evil is attributable to Satan, and how much do they believe that earthly human psychology is behind it? In the Bible, we hear of people being influenced by Satan by demonic possession - but do mainstream Christians still believe that?

I don't think anyone has ever thought they were committing evil when they were - human psychology can convince you that you're doing something heroic, even holy. Like the Arab or Sri Lankan suicide bomber, or any other terrorist, or the Hutu who believes that the Tutsis have been oppressing him and convinces himself that genocide is the answer.

How much can you attribute that to Satan, and how much to human psychology and folly? Or are they one and the same?

Well, this probably wasn't a question posed to me, but I'm going to throw my two cents in.

I believe that if we blame EVERYTHING on Satan, then you take away people's sense of responsibility and accountability. "The Devil made me do it" is NOT a good argument.

I think Satan's influence comes from his presence in the world and his temptation, but if I understand what I've been taught, Satan has no power over us and therefore, cannot MAKE us do anything. He can tempt us, but we still have that final choice.

_________________

And like people burning houses in order to free the animals.

All humans have free will. Satan can't make us do anything, he can only tempt us. We always have the choice to do good. I'm not exactly sure if that's what you were asking.

EDIT: Crap, I simulposted almost exactly the same thing. I would've posted it first if my mom hadn't walked in (I'm supposed to be writing an essay)

I'll field the question:

Part of the problem is human psychology. Like Augustine, I am convinced that there is just something wrong with us, and that plays out in the way we behave.

However, the enemy is at work. I attribute his work in two ways: to possess and to tempt. There are some people in our world who suffer from demonic possession. I disagree with Smorky; I do believe that part of the fall means that our wills are no longer entirely free. There are some people whom the enemy is able to control. Now don't get me wrong, I do not believe that mental illness is the same thing. However, it is possible that the devil takes advantage of the mentally ill in order to exercise control over them. It's just the kind of low-down thing he would do. My point is that clinical mental illness and demonic possession are not the same thing.

But for most of us, the enemy tends to work primarily through temptation. It's easier and much sneakier. It's not that he makes us do things, but rather that he uses our desires and passions to lead us to do things that are wrong.

So is it the devil or human psychology? The answer is "yes."

_________________

I find it strange that you disagreed with me rather than SC. Maybe you think she won't like you anymore if you disagree with her?

I do agree with your post, that some people are possessed by demons and therefore lose their free will. (At least, I think that's what you were saying). But I believe that most of us do still have free will. Or at least the Christians who ask God to help them overcome temptation.

Smorky, what I said is that we do not have COMPLETE free will. We still have a sinful nature that coaxes us to turn away from God. What's more, the non-Christian has a distinct disadvantage. The Bible teaches that, without God's grace at work in our lives, we are spiritually dead. God has to restore us before we can even begin to turn to him in repentance.

_________________

He might not have noticed my post, Smorky. And besides - Didymus and I disagree on lots of things; he DID disagree with me, too, he just addressed a specific point you made. I'd never mind if he disagreed with me, unless he said something like, "That StrongCanada! I've never met someone more dim-witted!" or something to that effect.

I also forgot to mention the Creationist theory that Swooshoman talked about - I can agree with you on it, Swoosh, as lots of us do. But I also acknowledge the omnipotence of God and His ability to do whatever the heck He wants. If He decided to create a world in literally 7 days, it could be done...and he could do it by making it appear as though it was created over millions of years. However, my personal opinion on Creation-Evolution pretty much lines up with Swoosh's, I just acknowledge God's power to do otherwise.

_________________

I agree. If He can create the universe out of nothing, why can't He do it in 7 days?

Isn't there a verse in the Bible that says that it's impossible to do good without God? I thought there was, but I couldn't find it.

There is a passage that says, Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). And another passage that says that the goodness of God is what leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4).

_________________

Ooh, so much to cover, so little space. XD

I ascribe to a not completely literal view of Genesis, and there are a few reasons for this, and I'll try to explain it as concisely as possible. The broadest reason I can give is that God (remember, Jesus IS God, they are one and the same) speaks in parables, stories that may or may not be true, but more importantly, illustrate a spiritual truth.

Genesis may be a parable. I am not denying it could be 100% completely accurate, because I do not know, I was not alive at Creation. What's MORE important than whether Genesis is 100% accurate or not is the spiritual truth that God created the universe out of nothingness, all by Himself, and why we live in a fallen world.

Remember, Genesis was written for Hebrew slaves freed from Egypt, not for scholars. If I wanted to explain to you guys how, say, a nuclear reactor works, I wouldn't give you a completely, 100% accurate account that went into detail, because you'd be absolutely lost. You haven't had the education to understand it. I would give you a simplified version, dumbed down so that it would be easier for you, who has not had that training, to understand it.

So it could be with Genesis. I think the biggest proof of this is Genesis 1:16, which I will quote from the NRSV:

"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars."

As any astronomer will tell you, the moon is NOT a light. It reflects the light of the sun off of its surface, giving the ILLUSION that it is a light, but it is not. Would the Hebrew slaves have understood this concept? Probably not. All they understood was bricklaying and getting whipped. So to make it simpler, it was dumbed down so that there were "two lights," even though there is only one light in reality.

Again, I don't deny that Genesis could be 100% literal. I wasn't around when God created the universe, so I can't say for sure whether it took 7 days or 4 billion years.

Okay...done with that... *whew

Since the lack of complete free will (since if we had complete free will, we would be able to choose not to sin, but this is not possible) and Satan's existence as a real, living thing have been more or less covered, I think that'll about do it for me, huh?

Oh yes, and Romans 3:9-20 do a pretty good job of summing up that no one is considered righteous.

Okay, this was a long post, I'm outta here... >.>

_________________
DISCLAIMER: The preceding post was the opinions of Nate, and should be taken as his two cents. Actual exchange rate may vary by location, see stores for details, void where prohibited under penalty of torture.

It's not like I can easily give up...the feelings...of needing her. - Sohma Hatsuharu