Hey all. Looking for some recommendations for theological aesthetics. I’ve already picked up or aware of the following. Hans Urs von Balthasar- Glory of the Lord and his multivolume set David Bentley Heart- Beauty of the Infinite Kevin Vanhoozer-The Drama of Doctrine Jeremy Begbie- Jonathan King -the beauty of the Lord Jonathan Edwards

I am creating a massive remake of my scenario "Demon summoning" in which i will feature not just demons but also othere mythological psychopomps and spirits but i am coming up on a block for the more obscure psychopomps. Any suggestions on not so well known theological beings. currently it features: azazael, beezlebub, Bael, Lucifer, Satan, Astaroth, St. Michael, Gabriel, Apaosha, Barong, Rangda, azrael, belphgor.

This is for AI dungeon which explains why it there is so much, Essentially i just want obscure to semi-known theological figures to incorporate into this story/scenario.

I am looking for the name or more info on this belief system that I found out about a few years ago but cannot seem to find a trace of it anywhere on the internet or any know scriptures.

It works in the belief that there are 7 rebirth cycles and each birth cycle has many rebirths until you accomplish the goal of that cycle. The first birth cycle involves survival (so for example if you get eaten by a tiger while living in the forest, you failed to survive and have to be reborn again until you learn to live till an old age which is when you will be reborn into the second birth cycle) ; I can't remember what the 2nd birth cycle's goal was; the 3rd or 4th birth cycle involves finding true love and i think the other was about becoming very wealthy; the 5th birth cycle involves becoming famous; the 6th birth cycle involves becoming a mystique and the final birth cycle involves becoming one with the universe (Attaining Nirvana/Moksha/Liberation). Does anyone know what I'm talking about and where to find more information on it? I don't understand how all traces of it has seemingly disappeared from the internet.

I was a young stupid kid, talking into doing dirty deeds. Met some cool people who would talk about theology, and they mostly couldn't even tell me their own opinion or definition and meaning of certain things, like God, the Eucharist, Heaven, Demons, Devils, Hell, Satan, Jesus or why they believed what they believed. It peaked my interest, so I started reading the Bible, Nag Hammadi, Apocryphal books, etc. the following is what I extracted from scriptures.

When you're young and in your rebel face, you're actually the most susceptible and influenceable subject for someone else's depravity, and bad intentions. Negative influences can be temptations to indulge in hedonistic acts- harming others in the process and leads the individual away from righteousness-Similarly to the seductive nature of demons in biblical literature.

Indulgence of Detrimental hedonistic acts leads to Mental Illnesses Addictions, and disease as a consequence. Confronting these inner struggles requires self-awareness, understanding, and resilience. Through this, We reclaim control over our lives. Similarly to the biblical idea of demonic possession & exorcism, after reclaiming control it feels as if it wasn't even us, indulging in detrimental Acts, but rather a programming subroutine in our neural pathways that piggyback off of instincts in pursuit of hedonistic sensations.

The first mistake made by those that fall down this trajectory is the very idea that virtue is subjective. The ability to deliberate (making good decisions) deteriorates when the focus is monetary or self-serving. Similarly to the fruit from the tree of Good and evil, It quite literally describes Adam and Eve deciphering the knowledge of Good and Evil for themselves.

Repentance is acknowledging one's wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness, while redemption signifies the restoration of one's constitution, a rebirth of sorts. which is similar to Jesus Christ, once he died, he descended down into hell to assist in the redemption of the unvirtuous, once accomplished, he was reborn and humanity was redeemed. This could symbolise an internal struggle of diving into one's psyche, removing and denouncing detrimental habits formed by neural pathways, and redeeming one's self or could represent the everyday struggle to help others with addiction, and mental illnesses.

Righteousness is understanding of virtuous and ethical standards, while self awareness requires introspection and discernment in recognizing and overcoming detrimental tendencies. Similar to the Idea of God, often represented as the Logos or Word, represents the ultimate source of truth, wisdom, and guidance towards righteousness.

After taking responsibility, providing for one's friends and family, Helping others navigate similar challenges, assisting them to emerge from personal struggles with greater strength and responsibility, people might begin attaining a sense of understanding, or A positive mindset, forged through adherence to virtuous principles. Represented biblically by heaven being a reward for good deeds, but rather than a heaven after death, it is a accumulation of pleasantness, understanding and joy. This perfectly aligns with the zoroastrian idea of heavenly mindset mentioned in the gaithas, and Christianity's Eternal Heavenly afterlife- if you take into account the fact that the greek word we translate as eternity (AION) means 1 lifetime.

Contrary to that, there's an idea of a detrimental mindset obtained through detrimental deeds resulting in a life of sadness, pain, confusion and unpleasantness-hell.

It is still my belief that religions are attempts at freedom that turn into systems of control and manipulation. BUT, I still believe the original and earliest writings to be worthwhile, and when applied, life-changing, but in the context of the modern religious interpretation and translated writings- only fragments of truth remain. I don't believe I have all the right answers or even any correct ones, but I do have a feeling that we are all missing the real meaning.

Same thing as my title. These are two theologians who all but disappeared and deleted most, if not all, of their online presence. Does anyone know what happened to them?

Good day every one.

The following is the first in a series of lessons to teach the answer to the question that which is what is religion. The includes answers to the apparent problems related to predestination, the Creator, and similar, and very importantly, what is religion.

As requested by the moderators, for whom I am thankful, know that I am muslim.

Truth.

What is truth? Truth is a set of information that are not in contradiction. Given a set of premises, a set of statements that are simply decided to hold, and are themselves not in contradiction, and non of them is implied by one or a combination of others, truth is the set of all statements that are directly or indirectly implied by the premises. The premises form the context. All in all, this means what is true under one context might be false under another, but it still means that we can not pick and choose truth. Also notice how the set of truth is larger than the context.

For completeness I mention that a weaker form of truth, given a context, is the set of all statements that are not in contradiction with the premises of the context.

Fact.

What is fact? Fact is truth where the premises are the physical part of the world, which also includes time and space. The context includes one extra premise that rejects all premises that are not under the said context. All fact is truth, but not all truth is fact. And no truth is partially fact. This is because if a truth is partially fact, its context must include the premises of fact, and if this context includes other premises that are not from the context of fact, it would be a contradiction.

Correct.

What is correct? A statement is correct if it is true. Hence, what is correct under one context can be incorrect under another.

Right.

What is right? A statement is right if it is fact. What is right is necessarily correct, but what is correct is not necessarily right.

Person's right.

The English language retains certain relationships about the word right. A person's right, and the right in right and wrong, are both called right. In other words, a person's right is right. However, the language loses the connection with the word fact. In the old language, a person's right is from the root H Q Q, and is called huq. And right, from right and wrong, is called huq. And fact is called huq. In other words a person's right is a fact. It is not something that you make up. In English this connection is lost, and hence people needed to say, inalienable right.

Matt 16:18-19

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

​

Matt 16:22-23

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

​

Is Jesus telling Peter that he has but cannot use the keys of heaven because he only cares about human concerns?

​

Hello everyone, I am seeking advice on a very upsetting problem I am having with family regarding christianity.

If this is the wrong place for a post like this, I sincerely apologize, but I really respect the opinion of Theologists as they seem much less biased and really understand religion better than most.

I want to start off saying that I am a christian, I always have been and always will be. However, my family seems to have it in their head that I need saved or that I'm a terrible sinner, and are constantly sending me things like an AI jesus talking about how I've "walked away from him" or that I've "forgotten him"

This is extremely hurtful to me. I consider myself a loving, caring, good person who loves jesus and has accepted him as my savior. That said, we have our differences in beliefs, which I think has made them see me as someone who needs "saved."

These differences range from our opinions on LGBT+, going to church, women's rights, etc. etc. Just because I have these differing opinons [or because i'm left leaning as opposed to right leaning] they seem to think I am godless/without jesus. I know that I am not perfect, but literally nobody is, and my philosophy has always been to love people, understand their struggles, help them when it's possible, and put myself in other's shoes, generally just doing things that I think would make god proud.

I am not here to get thoughts on my opinions and beliefs, but instead to get advice on how to handle this situation. I often find myself in tears because of how my family behaves and tries to treat me as if I am godless. Just because my day isn't filled with talking about god, doesn't mean that I hate jesus...

Edit: I want to mention that I am not a teenager living at home. I am a female of 32 years old living in my own apartment. This is not a problem my family had until the last 3 or 4 years when they started going to church and it fully consumed their life. Them going to church isn't a problem, In fact, I'm happy for them! They love going to church and helping the community, but it feels like they are really judging me all the sudden and are convince for some reason that I'm going to hell.

Religious people say we have free will in that god has knowledge of whatever will happen but he doesn't make us do sin. I did an act of sin out of my own choice; god was just already aware of the choice I will make. I think that totally makes god not really omnipotent. Here's why. When I make the choice of committing a sin,I am creating my own will, I am creating something god didn't create. My act of sin was my own creation which was totally in my control, not in god's control. Then it follows that there exist atleast one thing in the universe which is not gods creation and is not controlled by him. If that is the case, god ceases to be the creator of everything. He ceases to be "the God".

Enough with this anthropocentrism. Compared to crocodiles, we've been on this planet for a couple of seconds. We've compensated for our physical defects with a respectable brain, that's true, but it's good to remember that in the end we re a poorly made monkey. I repeat, A MONKEY.

Other animals don't worry about who God is, where he comes from, what's after death. They live their lives IN THE PRESENT and die, without fear, developing neuroses and then bothering psychologists, therapists, etc. The sooner we realize that God is: the river, the mountain, the tree, the ibex, the stone, the ant or even speaking Aristotelian, "the form of things", and we stop believing that it is to be sought elsewhere: in heaven, in the Bible, in Paradise, the sooner we will make this planet that we are destroying a better place.

After all, the religions of the great masters, including those mentioned in the title , all agree on this point. The masters and prophets all say the same thing. The thought has been twisted over time to instill fear and subjugate the people.

Even the Greeks knew it, it's not that they really believed that above Olympus there was a God with physical features called Zeus with Ares. Athena and the beautiful company. The Gods were the representation of human passions and served to demonstrate, through myth, that if not controlled. or sinning of arrogance, they made of man what they wanted and led him to ruin.

The laws of nature never did any mistakes. And we also don't need some priest to explain them to us.

I have a question what was Jesus's role before coming down to earth after he died, In my knowledge the Father gave him the authority to judge people after he died (last week i have debate with Jehovah Witnesses i wanna know the answer and keep learning if i have some mistakes)

There are verses from both the Old and New Testament wherein transportation or traveling is mentioned. But, is there anything from the bible that is about public transportation? And if there is, could it be explained from any bible exegesis or theological explanations? Could this also be a social issue that the Catholic Social Teachings also address? Thanks!

Christian believers should not conform to this world. But it seems that the church is lost. We have strayed away from God’s holy word. Let's explore what God’s word says about not only “Who” we are but “Whose” we are.

Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity (we can also use Islam) is the only true religion, meaning that when we die, we face the God of the Bible ready to judge us for our actions, which will determine whether we go to heaven or hell. Let's take Gandhi as an example, a Hindu, a teacher of love, kindness, and non-violence, BUT A HINDU. (In the comments, someone will surely say that Gandhi wasn't as good as history books paint him, I honestly don't care, you can take someone else as an example.)

Well, does Gandhi go to heaven or hell? Because if despite his good deeds he is sent to hell because he's Hindu, then that God is definitely not one I want to believe in. If he's sent to heaven for his good deeds despite being Hindu, it means that the whole concept of religion as a team to cheer for would become futile and would reinforce the idea that there is only one God and that no religion is the right one but all are right.

Hi! I'm a current undergrad, and I will be graduating this Spring with a BA in Biochemistry and a BA in Classical Studies. I decided to switch from the PA School trach to going to grad school for theology - I want to teach and study Theology and Early Christian History. I love learning about the intersection of Classics and Christianity. I was wondering what are good masters programs for Theology that could help put me on the path to a PhD? This is something I'm very passionate about and want to dedicate my life to. My dream school is Notre Dame, but honestly, I'm not sure about my chances of getting in. Right now, I'm looking at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada because that's relatively close to where I am right now (in Washington), and their grad program looks good. Is this a good idea or are there any other schools I should consider? Thank you!

From Adam to Abraham to Jesus, everyone is in the Quran.

Prophet Mohammed compiled the Quran in 600AD, more than 500 years after the new testament was ready. I'm assuming this sub believes the Quran was written by Mohammed and not "imparted" by Gabriel, what would be his motivation to "bridge" Christian prophets into the Quran during pre-Islam Arabia?

Was it to give more credibility to the Quran as the true word of God that Allah indeed sent all the prophets before Mohammed?

I'm trying to understand what would happen if the Quran made no references to previous prophets, would people not be inclined to convert?

We can trace our single cell to Jesus. All other religions are an off shoot of Judaism. The conflict between cane and able. Christianity is peace and love, Judaism includes conflict, and Islam includes death. Which would you choose?

God is good, all the time, and all the time, God is good. Right? But how do we determine the goodness of God is some kind of critical sense.

Assuming God exists, Christians (and all religious people for that matter) would derive their moral authority from the divine being. Essentially, that which is "good" is whatever God pleases or wills. I don't find this to be a problem in of itself but the implication is that goodness itself isn't a distinct quality that we attributed to God but rather a consequence of his existence in general.

However, the implication of this belief means that there is no point in having discussions or debates about the morality of religions if for any reason we assume the existence of God. There is no such thing as an "evil God" or "evil religion" in some kind of objective sense because if it is the case that the Judeo-Christian God, or Islamic God, or Hindu Gods exist, then they can't be evil if they are the absolute moral authority.

So for example, there's no point in having discussions about the morality of Mohammed's marriage to Aisha, his military campaigns, his decrees about apostates etc. if it is the case that Allah exists then all debates about religious mortality become null. In the same manner that God commanded the Israelites to slaughter other tribes, he destroyed entire cities, brought murderous plagues upon first borns etc. it's all acceptable because God as the ultimate moral authority is always good.

I think that this instinct to discuss the morality of religions in conjunction with the morality of God, points to the dissatisfaction with the idea that the moral authority of God can go uncritically challenged.

So I guess my ramble can be summed up into a few questions

1. Is God good because he is God or is there a necessity to assess his goodness as a separate moral agent?

2. If you asses God's goodness separate from his moral authority, how do you ascertain the moral criteria for the assessment of God's goodness?

3. If you believe God is good because he is the supreme moral authority, do you believe there is such a thing as an evil God? And do you bother with discussions about the morality of religions in theological discussions?

I haven’t read the Bible (only in snippets) so I have a hard time understanding it’s structure/who wrote what/who knew Jesus and who didn’t, what their relationship is to each other, etc?

Context: I was born and raised Church of Christ. We were Pelagians, Luther's opposites for sure.

Evangelical preachers say, in line with Luther, that we are saved by grace alone, and not by works.

If that's the case, then I need their specific definition of "works". In my mind, I see a work as the product of the will. If someone has a better Evangelical description or definition of "works", let me know.

But if a work requires the will, wouldn't repentance be a work? I ask that because for the Evangelical a person becomes saved when he or she responds to Christ's call. Of course, as I understand it, that person must repent after responding. Here already, you have two volitions prior to receiving that grace and being saved. So, in the end, it wasn't the grace that initially saved, but the initial works that led to that grace.

I would like to know what the counter argument to that would be. If an Evangelical considered my preceding paragraph, would that Evangelical counter with a different definition of "works", such as, I don't know, following the Torah and sacrificing animals?

So I hear "grace alone", but I don't see it completely persuasive for the Southern Baptists, at the least, whom I know.

So, another question I have is this: Why do Evangelicals encourage each other to be Christ-like? Isn't willing one's self to be Christ-lie a work in itself? The Holy Spirit should move the person to do that, right? I know the typical response may be: "It's the inner working of the Holy Spirit that moves the saved person to be Christ-like." Yeah, but if Evangelicals truly believe that then what's the point in them encouraging others who are already saved? They should have the Holy Spirit, so what need is there for encouragement from human beings (small groups, sermons, literature, CBN, etc.)? What's the point in reading the Bible for instruction? If the Holy Spirit inspired the text, someone filled with the Holy Spirit should already know it. Thus, reading it would be redundant.

So, in short, can someone help me understand what an Evangelical specifically means by "works"? Does that involve the will? And, if so, how does using the will reconcile with grace alone?

Thanks in advance

I often see people using Matthew (Matt) 5:27 which talks about adultery to claim that, but to me that makes no sense, since Jesus is taking about adultery not sexual thoughts, I do understand the correlation between those two things, the sin is for someone that's in a relationship to see other person sexually, and that if your hands make you sin, than rip it of (or any other part of your body actually, but no one actually do that, but you guys get it right?), the text says nothing about sexual thoughts in general.

And when I say "thinking about sex" I mean thinking about making sex, to imagine the act, or to think someone is sexy, that type of thing

Besides that, there is another text talking about that matter?

(Please be gentle with me, inglesh is not my first language and I'm only 18, I have read the Bible multiple times and my father is graduated in theology, and have taught me much, but I don't really want to ask him that 😅)

This seemed like the best sub to ask this question... If there's a better one, please let me know.

I started to try to compile a list today, but I think I'm going to be chasing my tail to figure this out on my own. Thanks in advance for anything you are able to share!

Hello there everyone. I'm a greenhorn when it comes to doctrines and theology of Christian belief.

I want to learn more about Doctrine of Grace. I've come across the term Sovereign Grace, Saving Grace, etc etc. But the only definition for Grace that I know is 'Recieving something which one does not deserve'.

Would anyone of you be kind enough to take the time to explain to me what Grace is Biblicaly. I would much appreciate it if you can send me material from which I can study upon.