this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
115 points (98.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
726 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So our picks are either what the translator's interpretation of a demon was or from outside sources that may or may not be entirely canonical (if at all) to the bible? Huh...i imagined the church would have wanted the faithful to know the enemy a bit more. Wonder why they were hardly mentioned (I mean zero disrespect by this by the way. I may not be Christian, but i respect the faith).
Interesting regardless, and answers why some link possession and mental illness together in media (and i assume IRL)
Due to the nature of how translation works, interpretation will always be inherent to it, especially when we can't ask the original author for clarification. As for the church wanting the faithful to know more about demons, you could argue that is why they borrowed so much demonology from other sources. As for why it wasn't included in the Bible itself, any answer will have to be heavily seasoned with speculation. It is important to remember, however, that the New Testament was not intended as a "how to get to heaven" or "how to avoid hell" guide. It was intended as telling the story of why you get to go to heaven in the first place (the Gospels) and letters discussing how to live faithfully. Plus Revelation.
By their logic sin is inherent in man. The enemy was never demons.
Sin is inherent in humans after Eden, but Satan is always depicted as a tempter trying to stray the faithful away from the good path towards their basest desires (sin), in fact some denominations believe the snake in Eden to be Satan in disguise, which would make him directly responsible for sin as a whole.
Yes but also a subordinate to an omniscient and omnipotent god. He's a tempter and tester of Job. The ultimate responsibility is in the human themselves to meet the test and they are the ones who fail. The sin was not eating the apple of knowledge as much as deciding to disobey god to eat it. That's the "free will" and the original sin that is inherent in humans, and the real enemy. The serpent didn't so much create it as tempt it. I am not a christian, though. I actually believe a god that acts like that is evil.
Gnostics are a bit more interesting, because they view the serpent as a Prometheus figure that shepherded humans to free will while the God that was disobeyed was an evil god.